Grey Thoughts
Evolution - Metaphysical Bigots
Post-Darwinist, Denyse O'Leary writes about an abstract by Clifford Solis for an upcoming conference. The main point of the abstract is the metaphysical nature of the conflict between Creation and Evolution Theory.

From the Abstract
I am a metaphysical bigot and you probably are too. What do metaphysical bigots think? We think that creationism is a historical hypothesis: it is not a hypothesis about the future. We come to the conclusion that creationism is not scientific because it, by definition, is a supernatural historical hypothesis. We come to the conclusion that creationism is probably not true because we cannot tell whether or not creationism is, in fact, true.
and Denyse comments
I will note, however, that irrespective of bigotry, Darwinian evolution, by its very nature, is just as much of a "historical hypothesis" (and not a "hypothesis about the future") as is creationism. So there is nothing there to distinguish it from creationism here.
Indeed. As the abstract continues
We believe that the theory of evolution is a historical hypothesis, like creationism...The theory of evolution is also a hypothesis about the future: it is probably going to tell us how life is going to evolve over time.
Clifford fails to note that the Theory of Creation also has implications for our future evolution, as to its limits and also the diversity of life on the planet. In so far as the difference between Creation Theory and Evolutionary Theory and the future, it would seem that Creation Theory is better as all evidence seems to indicate a current downhill trend in the quality of our genetic structure.

What is even more ironic is the following statement from a supposedly 'enlightened' person.
We recognize that our unjustified commitment to naturalism has determined our answer to these questions. The fact that we are aware of this fact makes us enlightened and distinguishes us from ordinary metaphysical bigots, such as creationists.
What an all out load of crap. Creationists have been openly proclaiming the main different between the two theories hinges on metaphysical assumptions for many years. Intelligent Design advocates also have been saying this from the start. Now that some evolutionists have finally realized their bias, the attempt to arrogantly claim they are enlightened compared to creationists because of it is rather pathetic.

Sosis also makes a few more interesting statements about truth and worldviews
We are aware of the internal coherence of the way we justify our claims, and we are also aware that other belief systems, can be coherent, though we do not believe in them, in a literal sense. We value consistency and coherence.
The fact that it is true, we contend, is due to the fact we have the unjustified metaphysical commitments that allow us to talk about the truth, and that if we did not have those commitments, we would not be able to talk about the true.
Here Sosis seems to be claiming that the way he justifies his claims are internally coherent because he assumes, unjustifiably by self-admission, that he is able to determine truth. But what of the creationist claim that seems to be more consistent and coherent as the ability to determine truth is not in and of itself an unjustifiable belief, but a logical conclusion of being created to explore the natural world. It seems that creationists have a better claim to coherence.

Finally, Sosis makes a bad mistake when he claims
If asked whether or not our world-view is “true” we can say, “Yes, in a sense, but only against my theoretical or metaphysical background.”
His theoretical or metaphysical background IS his worldview. His answer of 'yes, in a sense...' is essentially saying that, yes my worldview is true if you assume it is true. This is a completely pointless answer and doesn't address the many glaring difficulties with his worldview. (Such as where the universe came from, or why anyone 'should' behave in any particular way if his view is true etc)

Ultimately, Creation versus evolution is a clash between 2 very different metaphysical assumptions. Unfortunately for naturalists, proving a negative is much harder than proving a positive. A single clear experience of the supernatural existence is enough to prove them wrong, and for those of us who have had this sort of experience there is little 'faith' involved in knowing they are wrong.
Good Analysis. All this time I thought I was a "special" metaphysical bigot, only now to be told I'm just "ordinary."

At least naturalists are starting to realize their "bigotry." Now we can stop arguing faith vs. science and have a real debate about which faith position is supported by the facts, and which metaphysical assumption presents a better view from which to approach scientific inquiry.

I'm actually somewhat encouraged... Baby steps.
Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger Weblog Commenting and Trackback by