Evolution is not a field for god debates…

Warning, this painting is rank paganism.

The obsession (on both sides) to use the evolution question to debate the issue of god is completely futile and at the same time unstoppable. At the ID site here we see the attempt to find secular doubters of Darwinism as somehow evidence they are making headway with the ID gambit, which has often been sanitized and reduced to some ‘neutral’ design factor or ‘design in nature’, but then the relapse, well, evidence for god, even this secular humanist said so, neutral testimony. You won’t get away with it. Write you up for a metaphysical moving violation. Interesting, but it won’t work. I will grant that the Dawkins style of atheism is a bit off. But ‘atheism’ in quotation marks won’t really go away and it is futile to try to use ID ‘evidence’ to attempt to counter that. The opposite isn’t really true because the term ‘god’ is incoherent and can’t be used to mediate evolutionary, cosmic or any other questions. Neither side here can bring themselves to study Kant’s critique of metaphysics, and his challenge to the design, or teleological argument, is fairly direct. And his classic antinomies are ignored as serious discussions of the Big Bag, evolutionary design, and the rest of get played back and forth. Dembski’s interesting case for design inference cannot be used here because the necessary ‘specification’ assumes that the referent ‘god’ has a prior meaning and/or is validated by the Bible, which unfortunately ain’t the case, The term ‘god’ cannot therefore be the specification for any (usually antinomial) attempted conclusion about ‘design’, and that includes most probably the adjectival full term ‘intelligent design’. For a believer in the Bible/Old Testament it seems a sure thing but unfortunately the other side of the admittedly provocative Big Bang is really beyond knowledge in Kantian terms. And any fudge here will immediately energize a theological protocol of great political and social severity, so the lack of proof must be made clear so that we don’t get a fascist government based on Dembski’s design argument. AI true believers often fudge the issue of consciousness with ‘intelligent’ (AI) machines, but the Turing test ironically fails here because, well, the big bluff may be at work here, it is a case of AI, and you can expose the deception fairly soon. As an ‘atheist’ in quotation marks I cannot resolve the god question as gibberish, but I cannot deny the possibility that a ‘god’ hypothesis could be designed that is actually intelligent, and possibly open to demonstration. Doubtful, but we cannot predict the future of such a question. As a self-appointed beat cop here I think the ID/Darwin mob needs to be written up for metaphysical moving violations, and by no means the first offense. And the detection of design in nature is almost unavoidable and has no real theological implications.
Update: in many ways Dawkins has retarded the evolution debate: by claiming a thesis as idiotic as naturals selection as the answer to all issues of design, he makes an argument he is destined to lose, in the process dragging down half the field of professional biologists with him. And there religious ID-its chuckle at their good fortune to get such a poor defense. The obsession with ‘design’ and the claim that selectionist evolution refutes all design arguments backfires and tends to make people regress to god thinking. But the reality of design in nature cannot be resolved one way or the other in any simple way now known. And design in nature is not an argument for any theological claims.

Source: At Newsweek: How Science Stopped Backing Atheists and Started Pointing Back to God – Uncommon Descent

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s