Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?

He won't discuss it because he can't back it up. He tried in the previous thread and failed."'evolution' as 'the sole causing agent for the entireflora and fauna in the earth's biota' is a metaphysic - a religion - in the sense that this 'evolution' represents the operational mechanism by which naturalism may have some rational justification (however weak that justification may be)"
(post 41 on this page: http://EvC Forum: The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al. -->EvC Forum: The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al.)If he has the qualifications he claims he must know that this argument is rubbish. He must also know that attempts to support his argument by claims of superior knowledge and education and assertions that others are ignorant or confused does not address the issue.In short it seems that he has no case and knows that he has no case.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-29-2003]

Why exactly would my qualifications be relevant ?

The problem is that the argument contradicts itself. He asserts that evolution in the form he describes it is a metaphysic but in a "sense" which is not a sense of "metaphysic" at all.If he cannot see that such an argument is false through the obvious self-contradiction then he clearly does not understand what he is saying at all.

Well post 28 makes it very clear that evolution is not a metaphysic - the definition given claerly does nto include evolution which is a scientific theory concerning a particular area of reality - and one that is far less concerned with ultimate reality than particle physics or cosmology. There is no basis, then, to single evolution out as a "metaphysic" on the basis of any definition you have offered.Perhaps the problem seems to be that you are determined to label evolution a metaphysic when it is clear that it is not. If you had tried instead to argue that parts of evolution were derived more from a metaphysical system than from science and labelled those as "Metaphysical evolution" you would have an easier time of it in that you would be at least arguing a position that was not self-evidently false.But lets ask you the sort of question you seem to be arguing. Everyone who has studied the matter with any serious knows that the conflict of evolution versus creation is a clash of science versus religion. Where have you been that this common fact appears to be a major revelation ?

That isn't strictly true. Since he includes almost any use of the word "evolve" (e.g. his idea that "human relationships evolve" is part of the "metaphysics of evolution", rather than a recognition that human relationships change and develop over time ?) it is possible that his version is unique to him.Even if it is not, this version is sufficiently obscure that it certainly cannot be taken that anyone promoting biological evolution is also promoting that particular "worldview".I also note that his argument relies very heavily on lumping together many distinct areas into an "all-or-nothing" package. Certainly he has yet to establish his central claim that the clash between the theory of evolution - understood as biological evolution - with creationism is not a clash of science versus religion.I did check the search - the majority of the first 40 links were related to a book of that title by Hull. Another lead me to a page examining this very issue and coming to very different conclusions :
Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics

The core of the issue does indeed seem to be where the bondary between the S.E and the M.E. lie.Since you have asserted that there is no dispute between S.E. and creationism and that the dispute between creationism and evolution is not science versus religion but a clash of metaphysics it follows that you hold that ANY part of evolution that contradicts mainstream creationist views is part of M.E. However you refuse to support these claims.So let us go back to the issue you refuse to address - the ancestry of whales from land mammals. By inference it appears that you regard this as part of M.E. but I see no reasonable justification for considering it anything other than part of S.E.Dp you wish to accept that this is part of S.E. ? or explain why you believe it to be part of M.E. ?Or would you rather go on evading the issue ?[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-02-2003]

Well it seems that you yet again attempt to evade the issue.We are essentially left with the claim that any part of evolution that contradicts creationism is part of the "M.E." - yet that is, on the face of it, clearly false. And yet we see that you are not prepared to put any effort into actually defending such a claim.I also note that your thinking seems confused here :

quote:

---

"... it follows that you hold that ANY part of evolution that contradicts mainstream creationist views is part of M.E."

​

The essence of what you're saying is correct but the details and application are difficult. For example, I surmise that you would agree that 'natural selection' is a "part of evolution". Yet, natural selection doesn't contradict creationism at all.

---

What is the point of this paragraph ? The statement you respond to is a simple logical deduction from your own claim - and it says nothing about the status of those parts of evolution that do not contradict creationism. The application is not difficult, because clearly it does not apply to any such points. The real point however is that if we can identify parts of evolution that conflict with creationism yetseem to be clearly part of "S.E." your claim is refuted - unless you can argue otherwise.

quote:

---

Briefly let me say why I find the topic of "whale evolution" a complete
waste of everyone's time : there is a vast number of unknowns; the 'evidence' is scarce and very much controversial; there is a great deal of conjecture interwoven into what very little is known; and, last but not least, there is already a presupposition that whales evolved from land animals - GIGO.

---

I disagree with much of this. Firstly discussing a clear example is not a waste of time. It is a clear way at getting at the real issue (so your failure to explain why it is NOT part of "S.E." is time-wasting). The evidence for whale evolution is not controversial in scientific circles - the descent from ungulates has been agreed for some time, for instance. The idea that whales evolved from land animals was not a presupposition but a conclusion drawn from the evidence. So we have a counter-eample to your assertions, in that we have science in conflict with your religious beliefs.

quote:

---

Look, let's not waste any more time, please. It's really very simple : I provided a synopsis of the ME. When you speak of 'evolution', are you solely promoting the study of changes in allele frequencies in populations? If you are then we have no dispute. BUT, if you are promoting the ME (as in the synopsis I provided) then you are promoting a metaphysic (i.e., NOT a science) that happens to clash with my own
metaphysic (Christianity). Only then would there be a dispute.

---

It seems odd for you to cmplain about time being wasted when most of the time is spent trying to coax information and defences of your assertions out of you. If you would actually discuss the issues properly we would make more rapid progress.And your synopsis of "M.E.", as well as being unclear and containing highly questionable points you have yet to address, does not clearly include all of evolution beyond "change in allele frequencies" nor have you supported your claim that anything more than that is excluded from "S.E.". So you have offered two definitions but it is far form clear that they are definitions of the same thing.Your post does contain some minor clarifications - which could, and should, have been provided earlier. But aside from that it adds little to the discussion.The key question here is whether your division between "M.E." and "S.E." is a genuine division or an artificial construct produced only to rationalise away the fact that creationism conflicts with science.The current state on that issue is :1) The only definition of "M.E." which clearly rules out a contradiction with creationism is "Everything in evolution beyond allele changes in populations". However this is consistent with the claim that the distinction is artificial - since it clearly could include scientific claims.2) Although a specific example has been raised, and you have accepted that your view demands that it is part of "M.E." you have not produced any justification for that view. This is also evidence supporting the view that we are dealing with an artificial divide.3) You have claimed that it is obvious to anyone who has studied the evidence that the clash is metaphysical. However if it is so obvious why is it the case that you have yet to clearly support your claims ? Shouldn't you be able to explain why the issues where there are clashes are in fact metaphysics ? The fact that you have yet to do so shows that it is not as obvious as you claimed.If you really object to wasting time then stop evading the issues and support your claim that all of evolution beyond "allele changes in populations" is metaphysics and not science.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-03-2003]

I will say at the start that I am aware that there are oddballs on both sides who may not fit but I think that this captures the mainstream positions.The purely factual disagreement centres on the history of life on Earth, but more importantly there is a difference in epistemology, on how we determine that history.For creationists the answer lies in a more-or-less literalistic interpretation of Genesis. As Joralex stated in message 40 of the "THe Bible 2003 Edition By God et al" his most important disagreement with those Christians who accept evolution was "their willingness to undermine Scripture in order to accommodate a paradigm that is contrary to the Biblical essence".The creationist view is therefore at heart based on a particular view of the nature, purpose and interpretation of scripture. A religious view.The evolutionist view, on the other hand is based on the examination of the physical evidence of our world. Taxonomy and biogeography and the fossil record were key evidences at first - but others such as Darwin's observations of the effects of the artificial selection used to breed pigeons were also important. More recently examination of genes has become available and it, too supports evolution. This is how science works.While it might be argued that the scientific evidence is somehow defective it is a fact that the vast majority of scientists working in hte relevant areas do accept evolution - including those who accept a supernaturalistic metaphysics. On the other hand, of the few scientists who accept creationism some at least have done so as the result of preexisting religious commitments - YEC Kurt Wise and ID supporter Jonathan Wells being two well-known examples (although Wells seems to have done little or no science since obtaining his PhD). I cannot think of any example who can be shown to have been converted to creationism by scientific evidence. The facts here are beyond dispute and point to the conclusion that creationism is indeed religious while evolution is science.Given all this it seems clear that the dispute between creationism and evolution is one of religion against science. To say otherwise in the face of the prima facie evidence to the contrary requires more support than assertions.

No, this makes it less clear.It seems that you have two ideas of "M.E." one of which is defensible (although I would disagree with it) but does not support your view and one of which is not defensible but does support your view.So unless you settle on one definition - or show that the two definitions really are synonymous - it seems that you have no case.All this dancing around the real issues just confirms that you don't know what you are talking about - and that your criticism of Mayr which ultimately sparked this thread is in fact unfounded.

While the definition of "Metaphysical Evolution" as "anything beyond a change in allele frequencies in population" is clearly convenient for creationists who wish to deny that creationism is in conflict with science, I have yet to see any real justification for that definition.It is certainly not an obvious truth - indeed it cannot be since it tells us nothing positive about about the ideas involved which would allow us to deduce that they were metaphysical in nature. And in fact it seems to be clearly false since there are aspects of evolution which appear to be quite clearly scientific, rather than metaphysical, which do indeed go beyond "changes in allele frequency".So if I beleive in elements of evolution which are not clearly metaphysical I should not affirm or deny that I support "M.E." since I do not accept that what I believe IS correctly classified as "M.E.", yet I do beleive in elements of evolution beyond "changes in allele frequency". An simple affirmation or denial would be too open to misconstrual.The rules of this forum are that we should debate in good faith. Surely that requires that it is reasonable to ask for support for an assertion especially whien it is repeatedly made, and when it seems to be clearly false. So, on what basis do you assert that all evolution beyond "changes in allele frequencies" is metaphysical ?