and then there's GAY:
Posted on 03/09/2015 6:58:35 AM PDT by Heartlander
Learning to rely on others is not evolution, it is merely “conditioning”.
Like the birds that come to my bird feeders...
“What exactly did she say in the article that leads you to this conclusion?”
“Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,... the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement?”
To suggest that the mind evolved to allow survival (which in turn requires it to function with some accuracy, and more accuracy in a creature that needs its mind to compensate for physical limitations) does not in any way suggest that the mind is incapable of discerning truth (accurate interpretations) in other areas.
In fact, a mind that has evolved to discern patterns that accurately predict future events (”If I see A then B then C, I am likely to be eaten unless I do D”) is likely to be a mind that can come to accurate conclusions based on partial information. That ability would allow it to make conclusions based on partial data and then test it in ways that would confirm accuracy (truth) or not.
My objection to speculation about things which may have happened millions of years ago is that the assumptions required for scientific respectability require no intervention by a supreme being. It rejects the possibility of a God Who Intervenes, then claims its conclusion prove its assumption.
But what the evolutionists say in the article does not prevent the use of the human mind to discover truth. There is no fatal contradiction in their statements.
I hate Philosophy.
Too much thinking evolved <- get it : )
I think you argument is with John Gray, and not the author. Mr. Gray makes the distinction that the mind servers evolutionary success, not truth, and thus shows his lack of logic or reason. And that is what the author points out.
Instrumentalism claims that scientific theories are merely tools-instruments-by which human beings come to grip with nature. If a describes events, we retain it as useful.
Pragmatist secular humanists don't worry about truth and reality. As long as they believe that darwinism is useful for achieving their goals,then it is pragmatically true.It is a useful fiction and useful as a description.
But what the evolutionists say in the article does not prevent the use of the human mind to discover truth.
There is no such thing as scientific truth. You are an animal. Animals only need to survive and procreate. Animals do not know scientific truths. Therefore truth, in particular scientific truth, does not exist.
The doctrine of theistic evolution severely undermines the Christian understanding of God and man's place in His universe.If evolution is true, then the story of the Garden of Edin and original sin must be viewed as nothing more than allegory, a view that undermines the significance of Christ's sinless life and sacrificial death on the cross. If Adam was not a historical individual, and if his fall into sin was not historical, then the biblical doctrines of sin and of Christ's atonement for it collapse.If original sin is a fiction, then we have no need of a savior.
so who says that survival strategy and truth strategy are mutually exclusive?
Pot smoking has made more liberals and leftists in the US than anything else.
The left never got control of the mainstream Until pot smoking became common and socially acceptable.
From the article, philosopher John Gray.
“Over time that has taken us from knowing how to select non-poisonous fruit and learning to heat food with fire to cleanse it, to the our current civilization, science included.”
Pretty good observation.
Interestingly, along similar lines it is an evolutionary-based argument for the existence of God or the supernatural
Science is limited to naturalistic mechanisms, so supernatural intervention is beyond the scope of science.
Personally, I think that the earth age conflict is one of the biggest tests the we have as humans.
I personally hold true to the plain written words of the Bible. The rest is all speculation.
In the end, I want it to be known that I trusted the Word of God over the intelligence of men.
“Science is limited to naturalistic mechanisms, so supernatural intervention is beyond the scope of science.”
I agree fully. In fact, it’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it is simply what science can do.
But, that does not have any relevance to my comment.
Based on the quote of Gray in the article, Gray merely says the supposed evolution of the mind would be to have a mind that promotes survival, not philosophic truth. But that does not CONTRADICT a mind discovering philosophic truth.
“Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.”
Saying something serves evolutionary success does NOT imply it cannot find truth.
“You are an animal. Animals only need to survive and procreate. Animals do not know scientific truths. Therefore truth, in particular scientific truth, does not exist.” - angryoldfatman
Animals DO know scientific truth, if they (as humans) work to attain it. Scientific truth merely means an acceptable (but not necessarily totally accurate) explanation for what one sees and experiences. Science does not involve itself in attaining ultimate truth. It is involved in explanations of experience that match A & B together so long as no better explanation comes along.
Evolution may or may not be a totally accurate explanation for what we see, but perfection is not attained by science. That is the realm of math, perhaps, but not science.
I feel odd making this argument, since I’m not an evolutionist. But intellectual honesty is important. God is ill served by either dishonesty or bad thinking.
In any case, the pressures that might evolve a mind have little to do with how well that mind functions in math or philosophy. More than one invention has found its best use in something the inventor did not have in mind at the time.
It is not only the author making these claims. From the article:
... Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? ... Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.”
On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe ... that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.”
...
Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals ...undermines confidence in the scientific method.”
Just so. Science itself is at stake. John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that according to atheism, “the mind that does science ... is the end product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn’t trust it. So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science.”
and then there's GAY:
Animals know scientific truth?
Good. I will ask the inhabitants of animal shelters about science instead of consulting humans. Truth is truth, after all.
Maybe it’s the cognitive impairment.
About as devasting an an attack on evolution as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.