FROM:
http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2008/03/another_fight_about_framing_an.php

The other thing we evolutionary biologists don't do enough of, and this stems from the previous point, is make an emotional and moral case for the study of evolution. Last night, I concluded my talk with a quote from Dover, PA creationist school board member William Buckingham, who declared, "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?"

My response was, "In the last two minutes, someone died from a bacterial infection. We take a stand for him."

I often press atheists to give me moral arguments attached to some reason I ought to adhere to them. They fail every time.

Little philosophical progress was made in the exchange between Buckingham and this biologist. The New Atheism is philosophically unrigorous. Here, Sproul was dealing with the epistemology of science, which science nowadays fails to address. Scientists would like to pretend that it has no bearing on their conclusions, which is patently absurd.

PA wrote:

Last night, I concluded my talk with a quote from Dover, PA creationist school board member William Buckingham, who declared, "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?"

"My response was, "In the last two minutes, someone died from a bacterial infection. We take a stand for him."

Hi PA:

I read your linked article with interest.

I think it is relevant to point out that you have committed the Straw Man Fallacy.

It is a mistake to confuse and mislabel creationists by comparing them to the Dover, PA school board member who wants to talk about a cross. Just like it is a mistake to confuse and label evolutionists or naturalists or atheists with the likes of Stalin, Nietzsche, and many other who are not talked openly by the pro-evolution crowd. I could mention names, just like you did with the Dover, PA guy, but I won't.

The reason I won't is because I take logical fallacies seriously, and I avoid them like the plague.

Would you like to discuss creationists that are actually RELEVANT to the above google video?

That would be a worthwhile discussion instead of you dishing out logical fallacies cited often by the pro-evolution crowd.

I think it is relevant to point out that you have committed

I didn't write the article, nor do I endorse it.

PA:

Sorry for my mistake.

I thank you for the clarification.

I made a comment at the scienceblogs.com site above which PA earlier referred to, and my comment was never posted.

PA: I am sorry for my earlier mistake. I interpreted your previous comment as an endorsement of the article.

Since scienceblogs.com will not publish my comment, here is my additional .02.

My 2 cents provided below deals with "ontological necessities" and why atheists who rely on evolution always backfire after taking Philosophy 101 class.

There are philosophical preconditions of minimum rationality that first must be taken into serious consideration before anyone jumps into any creation-evolution debate. These intelligible preconditions of rationality are required for any debate, even in our supposedly postmodern, relativistic society.

For even in our postmodern society, the law of non-contradiction still holds universally at traffic intersections and the notion of an enduring Personal Self or Human mind, contra David Hume, still holds universally true for wives wanting (insisting) their husbands to remember their wedding anniversaries...

For any debate to begin, we must take into serious consideration the topic of ontological necessities (defined as laws of logic, concepts, propositions, abstract entities, etc)

But one must have a worldview that takes into account these very same ontological necessities. And atheists who rely on evolution always backfire in the end by retreating off the stage.

Consider this argument:

1.) We have minimum rationality presupposes "There are necessary truths."
2.) No explanation of our having minimum rationality is complete or exhaustive unless it includes reference to what our having minimum rationality presupposes.
3.) No explanation of our having minimum rationality is complete unless it includes reference to there being necessary truths, like "if Mary has a smile, then her smile has a shape" or "a bachelor is an unmarried male", or "A cannot be not-A at the same time and in the same relationship."
4.) No evolutionary explanation of anything contains reference to necessary truths.
5.) No evolutionary explanation of our having minimum rationality is complete.

Premise 4 is crucial. And it is true.

The point is that there can be no explanation of our minimum rationality that appeals only to features of our world that might have been otherwise (i.e. they are contingent, variable features ). Our being rational requires explanation in terms of what are called ontological necessities.

Let me restate this here:

There can be no explanation of our minimum rationality (defined as what makes the human mind "different" from animal instinct) that can be grounded in changing, contingent features of a planet Earth.

Logical necessity can only be grounded or rooted in necessary features, not contingent features. You can't build a castle on an ocean of contingent, changing waves. You can only build a castle of true propositions, true statements on a foundation of necessary truths rooted in stone or rock.

And to have epistemic access to ontological necessities (such as propositions, concepts, numbers, laws of logic) requires a human mind made in the Image of God.

Anyone appealing to contingent features of the world--say evolution---to justify their worldview is in trouble in the long run.

This is not my attempt to discredit evolutionary theory. Personally, I am agnostic on the issue because I have an anti-realist view of the philosophy of science. The reader here should read the above as a direct, frontal attack on any worldview that depends on evolutionary theory to account for ontological necessities or explain the origin or accounting of the laws of logic, concepts, etc.in contingent terms.

Evolution can't explain the laws of logic.

And since evolution can't explain or justify the laws of logic (or any other ontological necessity), then the evolutionary foundation of atheism quickly crumbles.

The Christian worldview can indeed account for the preconditions of intelligible, rational discourse. The atheist worldview cannot.

And appealing to evolution is like writing bad checks. It may be more common today, but it still doesn't pay the philosophical bills at the end of the day.

Few are willing to engage in a rigorous philosophical discussion over the epistemology of atheistic science and naturalism.

Because if they do, they eventually have to justify their position that Atheism is not a religion.

“Dawkinsesque New Atheism” = Secular Humanism.

Throw this definition into your next Atheist debate and watch them spin.

A religion of anti-religion is what Atheism is, and it illustrates the hypocrisy and backwards logic of the Atheist arguments. Reflecting that Atheism is indeed a system of belief in something that can not be defined in a clearly rational manner. Which is, of course, the argument that Atheists use to justify their disbelief in God in the first place.

So what Atheists have done in context of western cultural belief systems about religion is simply replace God with themselves. And use this as a platform to mock anyone who disagrees with them.

In the end Atheism becomes what it most fears, a dictatorial belief system.

I do have to point out that you seem to be saying two things at once:

(1) Evolution can't explain the laws of logic.

(2) Evolution can't explain the human faculty for comprehending the laws of logic.

Are you saying one or the other, or both?

Or are you suggesting that the laws of logic are a precisely psychological phenomena that would cease to exits should the human mind cease to exit -- in other words, saying that (1) and (2) above are one and then same.

I do have to point out that you seem to be saying two things at once:

(1) Evolution can't explain the laws of logic.

(2) Evolution can't explain the human faculty for comprehending the laws of logic.

Are you saying one or the other, or both?

Or are you suggesting that the laws of logic are a precisely psychological phenomena that would cease to exits should the human mind cease to exit -- in other words, saying that (1) and (2) above are one and then same.
??

These are very good and relevant questions to raise.

Here is my answer.

I am saying and agreeing with both (1) and (2).
I disagree with the third option above, namely, the naturalist view that the "laws of logic are a precisely psychological phenomena that would cease to exist..."
I would argue against that position.

why don't the "laws of logic" and the "laws of Science/math" Evolve? if evolution was true?

b/c the macro-evolutionary theory and explanation for the beginnings of life is Irrational perhaps?

why don't the "laws of logic" and the "laws of Science/math" Evolve? if evolution was true?

b/c the macro-evolutionary theory and explanation for the beginnings of life is Irrational perhaps?
jp

Let us assume, for sake of argument, that Evolution is true. The question then becomes:

"why don't the laws of logic evolve, since evolution is true?"

The answer is that the immaterial laws of logic are normative, ontological (that is, they are "real"; independent of us) features of reality. We discover the laws of logic to exhibit logical necessity.

These immaterial abstract entites, referring to the laws of logic, reflect logical necessity, that is markedly different from anything else.

Since the laws of logic exhibit logical necessity, what is not necessary (example: our hypothetical assumption of the truth of evolution) cannot provide the ground for what is necessary.

That is, what is contingent cannot ground or provide the foundation for what is necessary.

One cannot build a skyscraper on a foundation of shifting sand alone.

have a good answer/summation on how Hitler was influenced in some way by Darwin or Darwinism? or Nietzche for that matter. Not that all darwinist are like Hitler/Stalin, etc. but that darwinism provided the intellectual grounding for things like the Holocaust.

although I think there was an islamic influence as well.

anyway, thats the line of attack they are taking against this film so far. "Godwins Law" and what not....wonder how far they actually go in the film. have a feeling they are misrepresenting their point to mean "darwinism = hitler"

have a good answer/summation on how Hitler was influenced in some way by Darwin or Darwinism? or Nietzche for that matter. Not that all darwinist are like Hitler/Stalin, etc. but that darwinism provided the intellectual grounding for things like the Holocaust.
jp

I am not a very good historian. I have not read much about the origin of Hitler's philosophy either. I do not know enought to comment.

By the way, jp, your excellent comments steered me from the "Jump onto Ron Paul train" a year ago. At that time, I really enjoyed Ron's message on illegal immigration, due to all the type of crazy stuff I see at the hospital where I am employed.

I have sent copies of your past posts to a lot of my Christian friends who were once enamored with Ron Paul euphoria.

The question then becomes: "why don't the laws of logic evolve, since evolution is true?"

Uh, no, the question becomes no such thing. You're barking up the wrong tree my friend. TENS purports only to account for the evolution of organisms.

Now, if you were to ask: How came the human mind to evolve the capacity to comprehend logic? you might be onto something.

And then there is the obvious: How do you know the "laws of logic" haven't "evolved?"

With that in mind, I've often wondered what affect the expanding of the universe might have on such constants as the speed of light. Perhaps the size and dimension of the universe has no bearing on the great constants... but then again, it might. But mayhaps the change is so gradual, we humans don't notice it?

Perhaps the universe will one day reach a point of expansion which causes the strong nuclear force to cease and all matter will just drift apart.

Let us assume, for sake of argument, that Evolution is true. The question then becomes:

"why don't the laws of logic evolve, since evolution is true?"

The answer is that the immaterial laws of logic are normative, ontological (that is, they are "real"; independent of us) features of reality. We discover the laws of logic to exhibit logical necessity.

These immaterial abstract entites, referring to the laws of logic, reflect logical necessity, that is markedly different from anything else.
ColtsFan

Uh, no, the question becomes no such thing. You're barking up the wrong tree my friend. TENS purports only to account for the evolution of organisms.
??

I am unclear as to what you mean by TENS.

My previous comments were to only note the fact that there are some naturalists/atheists who do believe that the laws of logic do evolve.

Now, if you were to ask: How came the human mind to evolve the capacity to comprehend logic? you might be onto something.
??

Yes, I am aware that there are indeed Non-reductive Physicalists who do hold to a broader ontology that includes necessary truths, abstract entities, and the laws of logic. These same Physicalists deny substance-dualism, thus leading to your question above.

I still think there are epistemological problems that are fatal for this version of Naturalism.

I meant the following to not be included in the above block quote:

Yes, I am aware that there are indeed Non-reductive Physicalists who do hold to a broader ontology that includes necessary truths, abstract entities, and the laws of logic. These same Physicalists deny substance-dualism, thus leading to your question above.

I still think there are epistemological problems that are fatal for this version of Naturalism.

My previous comments were to only note the fact that there are some naturalists/atheists who do believe that the laws of logic do evolve.
ColtsFan

This is one example. In this book, a Naturalist wants to argue his conclusion that the immaterial laws of logic are really an empirically-generated subset of, and derived from Biology, while at the same time using the a priori normative categories of logic to persuade his fellow naturalists of his conclusion.

I am afraid his view is finding a receptive audience nowadays.

so do the laws of say Thermodynamics also evolve?

so do the laws of say Thermodynamics also evolve?
jp

The laws of Thermodynamics, which we know empirically through science, are in a different category than the a priori laws of logic.

I am agnostic concerning your question.