What if Darwin Was Wrong?
What if Darwin was wrong? Would it matter for the God argument? No, it would not matter one whit.
In the latest latest installment of The Atheist Experience (24.20, May 17, 2020), Jenna Belk and Anthony Magnabosco (the "street epistemologist") argued with a theist who claimed to be an expert in -- and a debunker of -- the theory of evolution. The three of them wasted precious time arguing over how one qualifies as such an expert. *Big Yawn*
Who cares? The reason it doesn't matter is that evolutionary theory is irrelevant to the God question. If Darwinist theory were to fail tomorrow because of palpably conflicting fossil evidence, that could not resurrect God as an explanation of the origin of species (or of life). It would simply mean that the naturalists would have to look for a new theory. This sort of thing has happened throughout the history of science. It would indeed be a big setback for biologists and related scientists -- given that evolutionary theory has been confirmed and has withstood challenge repeatedly over many years -- but it would not deal a blow to the scientific enterprise per se or to naturalism, that is, the indefeasible presumption that the natural world consists of everything that is, full stop.
In other words, the incoherent and contradictory notion of the supernatural cannot rise from the ashes of a discredited naturalist explanation of anything.
For the fun of it, let's put the point about Evolution and God into logical form. It is untrue that if E then not-G. (God -- ignoring it's impossibility for now -- might have set evolution in motion.) But it also not true that if not-E then G.
In the latest latest installment of The Atheist Experience (24.20, May 17, 2020), Jenna Belk and Anthony Magnabosco (the "street epistemologist") argued with a theist who claimed to be an expert in -- and a debunker of -- the theory of evolution. The three of them wasted precious time arguing over how one qualifies as such an expert. *Big Yawn*
Who cares? The reason it doesn't matter is that evolutionary theory is irrelevant to the God question. If Darwinist theory were to fail tomorrow because of palpably conflicting fossil evidence, that could not resurrect God as an explanation of the origin of species (or of life). It would simply mean that the naturalists would have to look for a new theory. This sort of thing has happened throughout the history of science. It would indeed be a big setback for biologists and related scientists -- given that evolutionary theory has been confirmed and has withstood challenge repeatedly over many years -- but it would not deal a blow to the scientific enterprise per se or to naturalism, that is, the indefeasible presumption that the natural world consists of everything that is, full stop.
In other words, the incoherent and contradictory notion of the supernatural cannot rise from the ashes of a discredited naturalist explanation of anything.
For the fun of it, let's put the point about Evolution and God into logical form. It is untrue that if E then not-G. (God -- ignoring it's impossibility for now -- might have set evolution in motion.) But it also not true that if not-E then G.
Comments
Post a Comment