Hi Forrest,
I asked some time back why you reject evolution. I asked:
1) Do you reject it because of the idea of common descent? In other words the idea that humans and bananas have a common ancestor some time in the history of life on earth
2) Do you reject evolution because of the idea of "natural selection" somehow refutes the design argument i.e. Paley's watchmaker argument (as pointed out here)?
3) Do you think evolution is some sort of argument against God or religion?
4) Any other?
I didn't receive any answer but I am going to assume common descent is a major reason.
1) Rejection of evolution because of the idea of common descent
Evolution in this context just means biological change. I think we can both agree that biological change happens.
You arose as a result of the sexual activity of your parents and they arose as a result of the sexual activity of their parents etc. etc.
We are humans now and your parents parents' were humans as well and so on. I don't know whether you think the earth is only 6000 years old or whether it is a few billion years old. Either way, there was a point in history where there where no humans. So it logically follows that there had to be a point in history where the first human being came into existence, whether you believe in a young earth or an old earth and common ancestry.
The same logic can be applied to you as a person.
There was a point in history where there was no "you" i.e. you didn't exist. So it logically follows that there had to be a first instant in history where you came into existence.
The statement "the first human arose from descent with modification, and therefore not from an act of special creation” is no more true than the statement “I arose from the sexual activity of my parents, and therefore not from an act of special creation”. Both statements are simply fallacious.
But now you might want to point to gaps in the fossil record and pinpoint some time in history where humans where created. This is simply as silly as trying to point to some gap in your mother's pregnancy and pinpoint when you where created.
Apart from the silliness of such arguments form ignorance it is also the first step towards deism (not theism) and ultimately atheism or agnosticism. By trying to point out to some gap in the fossil record or some fine-tuning event at the beginning of the universe, you are essentially saying God is just some sort of tinkerer deity that played a little bit with a few constants for some purpose or a tinkerer deity that tinkers with a few causes to make "irreducibly complex" structures with large amounts of "specified complexity" at some far away point in time. This view is not at all in line with the classical theistic view of God as Being Itself, Pure Actuality, the First Cause of all contingent being here and now and whenever there exists something contingently.
The point being, arguing that gaps in the fossil record support classical theism is fallacious. In actual fact, if such arguments ever succeed, the best you can do is end up with some sort of deism and not classical theism.
Similarly, arguing that "humans arose from common descent" or "you arose from the sexual activity of your parents" and therefore creation is false, is simply fallacious as well.
Now you get people that often say this or that is not "science" or that "science" has proven this or "science" can or can't prove that. What they usually refer to in that context is specifically empirical science.
Science comes from the Latin word "scientia" meaning knowledge. Science as an endeavour is just the pursuit of knowledge. There are various kinds of knowledge for example:
Knowledge we gain via our everyday experience of reality.
Knowledge from example historical and literary sources.
Knowledge about the physical world gained via observation and experimentation.
Knowledge about art.
Knowledge about logic.
Knowledge about economical affairs etc.
We try to explain all these kinds of knowledge. We intellectually and rationally analyse knowledge and then yield systematised truths about various aspects of reality and then we name it the various special and general sciences.
For example, knowledge about truths related to calculus, geometrical structures, algebra etc. we can collectively call the "mathematical sciences".
Knowledge about our social interactions with others are analysed and reasoned about and we can call it the "social sciences" e.g. economical, political, psychological etc. sciences.
Knowledge gained from the physical environment via experimentation that is intellectually analysed to yield certain truths about the physical world can be called the empirical physical sciences e.g. physics, biochemistry, physiology, genetics, chemistry etc.
Philosophy is a general science and its main aim is to answer deeper and more extensive questions and in order to do so, rational enquiry and reasoning need to be employed to understand the more ultimate reasons and causes of things. Logic, as a general science, is a more practical philosophical science. Metaphysics as a science in turn is concerned with real being and its attributes.
In casual conversations the term "science" is usually used to refer solely to the empirical physical sciences as stated above and you can see it many times in this thread. One can of course argue that we are all in the pursuit of knowledge and thus we are all scientists in a trivially true sense. This does not imply that we are all empirical physical scientists or social scientists or metaphysicians or logicians.
However, if we are to be intellectually honest pursuers of knowledge (scientists in the trivially true sense) we should be informed about the findings of the special sciences such as the empirical physical sciences, the social sciences and the mathematical sciences and be free to gain insights from the more general sciences such as logic, philosophy and metaphysics. The claim that the empirical physical sciences are the only sciences that can increase our knowledge (modern scientism) is simply untenable and actually self-refuting.
There are certain things that simply cannot be determined via the empirical physical sciences. Examples include the existence of objective morality, whether Paris Hilton has taste, the existence of the soul, God, free will etc.
Be careful not to make metaphysical claims based on only empirical science (rather use logic) and don't try to use metaphysics to prove or disprove empirical science. The best way forward is to harmonize logic, metaphysics and empirical knowledge. And I would argue that the best system to do this is Scholasticism so
I would say familiarise yourself with the works of Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics, past and present.
Sign up with Google
