A Critique of J.P Moreland's Article "Why is Evolution Believed In More Firmly Than The Evidence Warrants?"
Offline It's very difficult to read J.P Moreland and not laugh. However, here is the critique...
http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000884.html
There I said that scientific naturalism includes three claims. First, scientific knowledge is vastly superior to all other forms of knowledge.
Except for a select few, naturalists still believe in methods of logic and mathematics, which are a priori by nature. You're simply making a strawman by claiming that naturalists reject a priori methods.
Third, the picture of reality that results from this creation story (which is, in turn, the only story alleged to have the support of scientific ways of knowing) is physicalism: the belief that the physical, material cosmos is all there is, was or ever will be.
While this is generally true, many naturalists subscribe to a form of platonism regarding mathematics. In addition, the naturalist David Chalmers accepts property dualism. Naturalism and physicalism are often coupled together, I agree. But not by any necessary relation.
It is important to note the relationship between these three claims: Most naturalists believe that the physical cosmos is all there is, was or ever will be because their creation story allows no room for miraculous divine activity.
Not one materialist that I have ever met claimed this. Furthermore, there were materialists before evolutionary theory (Spinoza). There is not logically necessary relationship between materialism and evolutionary theory.
(a) their theory of knowledge says that it’s irrational to believe in things that can’t be tested scientifically with the five senses, and (b) because they believe that divine activity can’t be so tested.
A is false as well as B (arguably). Once again, you're implying that naturalists reject the a priori. Some do, but most don't. many people believe B is also false. Richard Dawkins, most notably. He has argued that theists are making claims about the universe. Therefore, Dawkin's argues that theistic claims are open to falsification. Dawkin's makes an interesting claim, but I tend to view religious claims as meaningless.
With this background in mind, let us recall that our present question is not about the scientific evidence for evolution.
Isn't the title of your paper "Why is Evolution Believed In More Firmly Than The EVIDENCE Warrants?"
Evidence is of paramount importance. For if the evidence is strong, which it is, then it is warranted. If the evidence is weak, then belief in evolution is not warranted. So your claim makes little sense.
I think this evidence is quite meager.
Translation: "I have never studied evolutionary theory"
In any case, even if we grant (for the sake of argument) that there is a decent amount of evidence for evolution, the degree of certainty claimed on its behalf and the widespread negative attitude toward creationists are quite beyond what is warranted by the evidence alone. What is going on here?
It's obvious whats going on. You're not making any sense.
First, the widely accepted intellectual authority of science, coupled with the belief that Intelligent Design theory is religion (rather than science) means that evolution is the only view of the origins of life that can claim the backing of reason. In our empirically oriented culture, science (and science alone) has unqualified intellectual acceptance.
Unlike your theology, scientific theories are always debated among scientists. Go to a scientific conference. It's rough. Any scientific theory has to fight to become one. It isn't like one day all the scientists said "ok, today we are going to support evolutionary theory." This is not the ethos of science. I suggest you actually look into how science works. I think you think that science works the way theology works: The bible said it, I believe it, that settles it. Unlike theology, scientific theories are not wild speculation and the manipulation of incoherent concepts. Sorry to burst your balloon, but science is a rigorous field, unlike theology.
On the evening news, when a scientist makes a pronouncement about what causes obesity, crime, or anything else, he/she is taken to speak as our culture’s sole authority on the issue at hand.
Not sole authority, but an authority nevertheless. Why? Because if I want to know the causes of cancer, I will ask a medical doctor. This ought to make sense. All of us cannot be experts at everything. We need to rely upon experts. Now, if I want to know about how to be intellectually dishonest, myopic and how to perform sophistry, I will contact a theologian.
When was the last time you saw a theologian, philosopher or humanities professor consulted as an intellectual leader in the culture?
What do you call Daniel Dennett (Philosopher) and Noam Chomsky (Linguist)? What about Thomas Kuhn? or Karl Popper? Moreover, Bertrand Russell was very active in the political arena. And, let us not forget Peter Singer.
Because many think that Intelligent Design theory is religion masquerading as science, the creation/evolution debate turns into a controversy that pits reason against pure subjective belief and opinion.
And because creationism has no evidence. Perhaps thats why it isn't respected...kinda like Big-Foot theorists and Holocaust deniars arn't respected. There is no evidence for it...none. You just made it up, and pretend like it is science. If pretending made things true, I would be rich and living in the playboy mansion with all the bunnies.
In the infamous creation-science trial in Little Rock, Ark., in December 1981, creation science was ruled out of public schools, not because of the weak evidence for it, but because it was judged religion and not science. Today, in the state of California, you cannot discuss creationist theories in science class for the same reason.
Because religion doesn't belong in science. Isn't this obvious?
Space forbids me to present reasons why almost all philosophers of science, atheist and Christian alike, agree that creation science is at least a science, and not a religious view, regardless of what is to be said about the empirical evidence for or against it.
I really want to see the evidence for this. The closest I have heard is when I went to a talk by Evan Fales. His thesis was that creationism could be science, in principle, but it was as a matter of fact, not a science.
-------------------------
I end the critique here. The rest of the article is like Hovind style debate.
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
- Login to post comments
A couple things.
This was one of the funniest things I've read in this specific forum. Awesome to the max.
Jackal found something hilarious the other night. There are apparently Beowulf apologists. Yep. They believe it was a true story and that Graendal was a T-Rex. I take that about as seriously as I take this J.P. Moreland fellow.
In another note, Moreland seems to exhibit an extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect)
Interestingly, he also seems to know about the effect and claims that materialists succumb to it (in a round-about and non-sensical way).
"Jesus -- the other white Moses" - Me.
Awesome post.
My two favorite parts:
And...
There are too many misconceptions by theists about how scientific hypotheses become 'theory'.
Thats very interesting. From my own experience, it seems to be true. The really intellegent people are self assured, whereas the morons are off the the races talking about things they know nothing about. This effect also works on many fat women when it comes to wearing clothes. Not to be mean, but if you're like 300 pounds, perhaps its not a good idea to wear a tube top.
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
Thanks. But refuting Moreland is like beating an illiterate kid in a reading contest: Its a sure thing. I mean, with statements like this
"Philosophical naturalists want evolution to be true because it provides justification for their lifestyle choices."
Is it really that hard?
I guess I just expected more from an educated man.
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
I'm trying to decide whether Moreland makes laugh out loud or makes me feel vomit in the corners of my mouth. It used to be funny, now its leaning towards the latter. He's incredibly embarassing. Not only that, he has absolutely no right to comment on this subject. The man is a theologian, which translates roughly into professional sophistry conjurer. Unlike the hard sciences (my field) which require formal study, or philosophy (which requires genuine brainpower) J.P Moreland seems to have chosen a path which fits suitably with his intellect, or lack thereof.
So, he decides that all fields of thought follow a similiar pattern to theology, ie that "making things up" is an acceptable research technique and "plenty of imagination" is a suitable qualification for publication. It's so pathetic, it isn't even funny. I didn't enjoy reading his writing, but I did enjoy your refutation. Very nice.
In a letter to todangst I wrote:
Although, when the phrase "Christian apologist" ceased being an insult and started being something which men like Craig, Bahnsen and himself boasted about I do not know. I shudder to think that some still operate under the delusion that theology is a respectable position capable of offering answers and shamelessly pretending they were not conjured out of thin air (*cough* Richard Swinburne). I would go so far as to inquire: Is it even a real subject? What do they do except sit around and entertain armchair ratiocinations? If you have the time, ask him yourself as to why he fancies himself the standard bearer of a subject which seems to be proud to have not inched forward in fifty centuries.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Well, it is obvious why he defends what he does. He wants creationism, substance dualism, and christian theism to be true. Therefore, he concludes that they must be. Seriously, name me one cognitive scientist who defends substance dualism. Name me one repitable biologist who defends creationism. Now, to most reasonable people, the fact that the vast majority of cognitive scientists, neuroscientists and philosophers of mind agree that the mind is material atleast has some intellectual sway. The same goes for creationism. Now, theists like to pride themselves at being humble. I ask you, how humble is it to latently say "all the experts working in a given field are wrong. I know the true answer, even though I do not work in the field." I mean, what hubris. This is tantamount to a layman walking up to Stephen Hawking and saying "you wrong." I mean, would this dipshit really be taken seriously?
But when it comes to matters of theology, it taken to be ok for someone to be certian regarding the nature of the universe, without a shred of empirical evidence. Poor Galilio ran into an extreme version of this. When he said their were more moons around jupitor than the church agreed with, and could prove it with empirical observation, the church rejected it. They wouldn't even look. Why? Because they were convinced that they knew, a priori, that jupitor didn't have that many moons. Same is true with Moreland. He doesn't have to empirically verify anything, he is convinced he knows that evolution is false...not because he has studied the evidence, for it is obvious he hasn't, but merely a priori.
They can comment because they have the bible. According to them, the bible knows all. Who needs evidence when you have the good book? *rolls eyes*
It's painful to watch. It is like watching someone build something wrong. its like "damnit, give the wash machine he for christ sake."
Like shooting fish in a barrol
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
That's the thing about creationism - it's such a conspiracy theory.
At best they're saying that the world's most proffesional biologists have made a blunder so obvious that the local pastor can see it.
More often they think that the world's scientists are being controlled by the devil in a conspiracy to destroy the world!!!!11!!!!!1!
It is surely a sad delusion that makes one think a local pastor can have answers that have escaped nearly 150 yrs of research and scientific minds.
Just think of how much arrogance these people have. In essence, these people claims all the experts in the following fields are wrong: biology, biochemistry, medicine, ecology, anthropology, evolutionary linguistics, evolutionary psychology, to name a few. This is just talking about evolutionary theory. Many are young earth creationists...in essence, claiming physicists and geologists are wrong.
Once you really try to engage in mind-reading with these people (a cog sci term, meaning ascribing beliefs, intentions, emotions, and so on to others) you see that their mind is not functioning properly (to steal a line from Plantinga). I mean, it is the equivolant of saying to a doctor specializing in infectious diseases that HIV doesn't cause AIDS (oddly enough, their are people like them. Most notiably, that lawyer who wrote "Darwin on Trial" I can't remember his name). I mean, this kind of belief structure shouldn't pass an elementry education. I'v heard more reasonable things in a psychiatric hospital...
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
That lawyer's name is Phillip E. Johnson.