The above trailer advertises an
anti-evolution video produced by North American fundamentalists. According the
trailer top evolutionists were interviewed “Until” as it says, “it is
clear there is no evidence for Darwinian evolution”. The
trailer shows various tongue tied establishment academics trying to think of evidential
one liners in favour of evolution; they have apparently been stumped by the request for "one" piece of evidence!
Stupidity, crass stupidity. So
called “evidence” can only ever be a limited set of data samples strung together
with what is often a huge theoretical background narrative. This embedding of
data into a theoretical structure is achieved with greater or lesser degrees of
success. Except in the most elementary ontologies, (in fact, if any at all) the scientific
epistemic actually works from theory to the evidence: That is,“evidence” only becomes evidence for a
theory if the theoretical structure of that theory can be shown to successfully embed the “evidence”. Therefore a theory has to be understood before
it is possible to assess just how good it is as a sense making structure for the consensus
data samples.
The trailer betrays the
scientific naivety of its fundamentalist producers: What do they expect in answer to their questions? “Oh yes, I did an experiment only the other
day and a fish evolved into an amphibian”. The huge theoretical narrative of
evolution, like any other grand theoretical structure, can only ever be evidentially
illuminated at a relatively small set of points. The case for evolution, or
even anti-evolutionism for that matter, is likely going to be by and large cumulative,
something that is justified by weight of evidence and not just a few compelling samples. There is an epistemic naivety in the very request for just one item of evidence; the case for evolution, if it has a case, is not going to be found in single pieces of evidence, but a suite of evidence.If the producers of this video understood this they wouldn't be asking such boorish questions.
In some ways atheist evolutionists
have set themselves up for this embarrassment. They have made too strong claims
about the compelling nature of the evidences explained by evolution - as if the meaning of evidence is obvious or easily interpreted. Evidence is seldom (if ever) direct “proof” of
the object it purports to be a manifestation of, or seldom has a very close relation to
the object-in-itself. However, as I'm sure these scientists are aware, their
conviction of evolution’s truth comes from an acquaintance with a large field
of data (plus the accompanying theoretical narrative for that data) and not just one or two
killer evidences.
I certainly couldn't give an evidential
one liner for the existence of God, or even, for that
matter, the existence of some simple ontology taken from test tube precipitating and spring extending
science such as Hooke’s law. It is certainly untrue that there is no evidence
for
evolution just as it is untrue to say there is no evidence for
God; the believers in both objects will endeavour to assimilate at least some data points
into their respective supporting narratives, thus being able to claim those data
points to be evidence. But, of course, evaluating whether or not these data points
constitute very compelling evidence will be moot.
The title of the trailer, “Evolution vs. God", tells me immediately
that its producers hold another boorish opinion. That is, they think of God as
an ancillary explanatory agent to be set against law and disorder explanations.
Here we have another manifestation of the North American God-of-the-Gaps
paradigm.
On the whole I would say that
this video is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of fundamentalism and the polarization
encouraged by God-of-the-Gaps thinking.
Addendum 3/7/13
The beginning of the video below advertising the "Evolution vs. God" film tells us something about Richard Dawkins' theology. He may be an atheist but that doesn't stop him having a theological template with which to compare reality. The irony is that his theological categories look to be similar to that of the film's major sponsor, Ray Comfort; namely "God of the Gaps" thinking. Dawkins, of course, thinks that evolutionary theory fills a gap, and therefore "God didn't do it". Comfort, on the other hand, thinks that evolution can't fill the gap because it's false and therefore "God did it". In short both agree on the theology of God as an ancillary gap filler. Presumably, if it could be shown that evolution is false, Dawkins would no longer be an "intellectually satisfied atheist" and God would be back on the agenda. Conversely, if evolution was shown to be true Comfort would have to review his theism. It is ironic that on one level Dawkins and Comfort have a lot in common.
Addendum 3/7/13
The beginning of the video below advertising the "Evolution vs. God" film tells us something about Richard Dawkins' theology. He may be an atheist but that doesn't stop him having a theological template with which to compare reality. The irony is that his theological categories look to be similar to that of the film's major sponsor, Ray Comfort; namely "God of the Gaps" thinking. Dawkins, of course, thinks that evolutionary theory fills a gap, and therefore "God didn't do it". Comfort, on the other hand, thinks that evolution can't fill the gap because it's false and therefore "God did it". In short both agree on the theology of God as an ancillary gap filler. Presumably, if it could be shown that evolution is false, Dawkins would no longer be an "intellectually satisfied atheist" and God would be back on the agenda. Conversely, if evolution was shown to be true Comfort would have to review his theism. It is ironic that on one level Dawkins and Comfort have a lot in common.
Ok PZ you may be a cousin of bananas but how would you have replied if he asked you, "Are you a close cousin of Ray Comfort"?
The following quote taken from a Christian Fundamentalist is classic false dichotomy zone:
For Christians who believe in evolution (“theistic evolutionists”), the film should be challenging. They will be forced to choose one or the other: God or evolution.
Addendum 05/7/13
The following quote taken from a Christian Fundamentalist is classic false dichotomy zone:
For Christians who believe in evolution (“theistic evolutionists”), the film should be challenging. They will be forced to choose one or the other: God or evolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment