Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Theistic evolution- that oxymoron

+ @ Facebook, one finds Klink's article against theistic evolution. It, Jerry Coyne's ' Seeing and Believing" [ Google his name to find the article and also his ' Intergalactic Jesus"] and Amiel Rossow's essay on Kenneth Miller @ Talk Reason, to ponder that theistic evolution is indeed an oxymoron, contradicting natural selection as the means for evolution.Religion and evolution are not really compatible on the side of science; from the side of religion, they can be.
The teleonomic/ atelic argument gainsays that God has any in-put into the evolutionary process: such in-put contradicts selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agency of Nature. To argue otherwise makes the new Omphalos argument that He has in-put deceividly whilst selection only apparently has force but is under His control: nay, science illustrates no such thing!
Those three writings illustrate that errancy can be as silly as inerrancy. Klink notes how errantists twist the Tanakh to their way of thinking, which is on par with that of i to natural causes to explain things.
And the presumption of naturalism attests that not only are natural causes and explanations, efficient and necessary, they are also primary and sufficient: they are the sufficient reason. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz notwithstanding. This neither begs the question nor sandbags theists or paranormalists, but is simply the demand for evidence as Einstein overcame Newton.

1 comment:

Carneades Hume said...

People find this divine intent by imagining that it takes intent for our having purpose in life and having values as Francisco Jose Ayala does in " Darwin and Intelligent Design."
Per the argument from pareidolia, they form the ideas of intent and design when only teleonomy- no wanted outcomes and patterns exist just as people see the pareidolia of Yeshua in a tortilla.
Our own purposes and human love and this one life suffice; ti's wailing to demand divine purpose and love and the future state as Albert Ellis^ would maintain.John Paul Sartre here states the truth that we ourselves carry the responsibility of forming our own projects! One should get counseling should one find herself unable to form her own purposes and overcome dread about what Francisco Jose Ayala wails.
The superstitious err in claiming that whenever we look around -the argument from beauty- we see His intent in action. No, we just see natural processes at work.
To aver divine intent poses the new Omphalos argument that rather than deceiving us with apparent ancient ages of things, He deceives us by letting scientists see natural processes as just teleonomic without His intent,as John Hick in effect does with his epistemic distance argument that He makes matters ambiguous as to His involvement in the Cosmos. No, that argument errs as no teleological interpretation can intrude on natural processes as they would contradict science rather than complementing it and also violate the Ockham with His ad hoc, convoluted assumptions!
The atelic argument notes that they beg the question of those wanted outcomes! Scientists find that they can change outcomes and thus no wanted intent intrudes as that intent would preclude those changes. Evolution operates by successive sequences of affairs that permit each other to happen rather than by an original programmer who foreordain what shall happen. Otherwise, supernaturalists are claiming the event before the cause and the present before the past, thereby negating time.
Augustine and Ayala have no facts for their argument from angst that we are restless unless in we are in His bosom, and the same for the argument from happiness-purpose.
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." Inquiring Lynn