Why William Lane Craig is Wrong on Evolution
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2024
- This video describes how William Lane Craig is wrong on evolution.
Here is the Craig interview:
• Is Evolution Anti-Chri...
Books
www.google.com/books/edition/...
www.google.com/books/edition/...
www.google.com/books/edition/...
Academic journal articles
www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/6...
www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/9/774
www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/4/282
www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/11/12/656
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi...
Blog
darwins-god.blogspot.com/
False predictions paper
drive.google.com/file/d/1S12O...
UA-cam channel
/ @darwinsgod
Music: Allpa Kallpa - Наука та технологія
WLC is blindly following Plantinga's misguided compatibilism here, confusing on technical definition of random here, however completely missing the point of evolution in the process
WLC endorses molinism and is not a compatibilist at all. He argued against Calvinism which is what Plantinga is
@@flompydoo9067 You missed the point. WLC claims evolution is compatible with the Bible.
What would your definition of the word "theology" be? It feels like your version is doing quite a bit of stretching.
Well I think claims about God qualify as "theology."
@@DarwinsGod Evolution isn't a claim about god, it's a claim that doesn't involve god. Water boils when heat is applied. There is no god in that claim, but it doesn't attempt to confirm or refute him.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't play hide-the-ball here. You're making an weasle-y claim about the field of biology somehow making theological claims, but you're not willing to actually make it explicit.
@@atdevill Quote: "You're making an weasle-y claim about the field of biology somehow making theological claims, but you're not willing to actually make it explicit." After several books, chapters, journal papers, blogs, videos, etc., I think I have been quite explicit.
@@DarwinsGod If only you had the courage to actually state your argument instead of just imply it.
@@atdevill Actually I do state my argument. I've written three books on it, more than a thousand blog posts, book chapters, several journal papers, and of course several playlists here on UA-cam. All the links are given in the Description section above. So what is it that you find to be not explicit? Happy to answer questions, but so far you ... have not been explicit.
Aren’t people allowed to disagree on theology?
You missed the point; this isn't about disagreeing on theology. If WLC said the Republican Party is politically neutral, you wouldn't say "yep, people are allowed to disagree on politics." It is simply an incorrect statement. Of course the Republican Party takes political positions, and is not neutral. It doesn't matter what your political opinions are, you need to understand that the Republican Party is not politically neutral. That is absurd. The same with evolution. Darwin's theory and later revisions of evolution are all committed to the same theology. You can trace it back to antiquity with the Epicureans, but it was substantially elaborated and expanded by Christians in modern times. By Darwin's day the foundation was laid and Darwin never had to justify is many theological claims--they were simply a given. You can see this in other aspects of western culture as well, which I touch on in *Darwin's God* ( www.google.com/books/edition/Darwin_s_God/UhO4DwAAQBAJ ). To say that evolution is theologically neutral means you don't understand evolution.
@@DarwinsGod wouldn't it depend on the theology? Couldn't some theologies naturally incorporate evolution? It's not a necessarily a categorical error the same way as saying the Republican Party is politically neutral.
@@brianevans3699 Interesting point as I think you could say the theology in this case entails or incorporates or mandates evolution. IOW, evolution must be true. Also, in my experience with evolutionists, the theology is such a given, that they do not recognize it as theology (like a fish doesn't know it is in water).
@@VFA666 "Anyone who claims evolution is theology doesn't understand science or theology." Oh, right, I forgot.
@@VFA666 This paper should help to disabuse you: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27139421/
Main point for me is that the Bible and its truth claims are reliant on anthropocentrism. Evolution shows anthropocentrism to be wholly inaccurate - a psychological effect that most species would likely feel about themselves (given the capacity), and so undermines most of the Bible's most significant teachings. I'd imagine that's why so many are so quick to reject it before really understanding it, in comparison to any other scientific theory.
Quote: "Main point for me is that the Bible and its truth claims are reliant on anthropocentrism." Well, then you missed the point of the video. This is a subject where everyone is an expert, and few can accept the facts of the matter.
@@DarwinsGod What I have said is a side point to the video, not directly arguing for or against your point but about the topics mentioned. I never claimed to be an expert, there's no need to be dismissive. If I am wrong and not, as you say, "[accepting] the facts of the matter", then by all means correct me.
@@MaxFoster-ni3op Evolution is motivated by, justified by, and constrained by, theological claims that contradict the Bible. These claims go back centuries, long before Darwin. In modern times they were elaborated on mainly by Anglicans and Lutherans. Darwin's book and the later evolution literature are full of, and dependent, on these claims, but they never justify them. The theological claims are simply a given by the time you get to Darwin.
@@DarwinsGod In what way is evolution, as a natural phenomenon, motivated, justified, or constrained by any theological claims? Regardless of the historical context or the works of Darwin and others, we can observe evolution and its effects today through fossil records and present species. The scientific process relies on observations that are not inherently theological or religious. Evolution is a theory that is based on this evidence, independent of any theological premises.
@@MaxFoster-ni3op Quote: "I never claimed to be an expert [...] we can observe evolution and its effects today through fossil records and present species." I didn't know that.
Evolution works with "living" environments; "theology" is a cultural factor and part of the 'environment', just like hot, cold, dangerous, benign, etc. It is an evolutionary pressure, just like everything else. I was going to go on a micro-rant.....but you get the idea, I hope.
As an upper-classman in EE at UB in 1986, I thought I had completed all but a few classes, a Senior Project, and some final Gen-Eds (~18 Cr Hrs) to graduate as a BSEE and BSCS.
In a Critical Thinking class (one of those Gen-Eds), I turned in a final paper with some rather fundamental challenges (IMHO), for the time, to Evolutionary claims. I was troubled by the lack of complete bone structures that the science was finding, for instance, in hominoids, and the conclusions they were drawing seemed like leaps that I didn't think were supported.
I thought the paper was rather well thought-out (again, IMHO) for the time I had spent writing it and verifying that it was presentation-ready -- around 18 hrs, in fact. So I turned it in and basked in the glow of getting close to the end of a BSEE / BSCS degree, thinking I had done well, and it was smooth sailing ahead.
I could not have been more wrong.
When I got it back, I was stunned to see a D-, totally blowing my semester's GPA.
As a Christian, I have experienced outright scoffing from professors at both the Community College and University level that there could be scientific challenges, not based on religion, to a theory they thought was cast in stone, and have had my grades lowered because I didn't toe the line in several classes that were outside my majors. We now know that life is much more complex than Darwin thought, and the presence of micro-engineered components, that require each other's presence to have already been present in the component to be built, that raise many questions not easily answered by Darwinian Evolution. And Darwinian Evolution has no answer to the origin of life.
I am gratified to see, but much too late for me, that there is now a growing body of evidence for a design hypothesis. As an EE, I had planned to investigate the interconnections of trees and forest-floor life, with the goal of developing mathematical models of signals between same and differing species, using probes into their root structures to listen for electrical activity. I wanted to hear plants talk, and I wanted to be able to talk to them, too.
Anyway, this grade knocked me down to a final GPA of 3.41 (the same as I had had at our area's Community College before UB, again on a grade lowered for the same reason.). Then I ran out of money (it costs money to fix such a problem), and had to withdraw. Nobody tells you outright that you won't have enough money for a double-major in CS and EE requiring 128 Cr Hrs, if you're using grants and student loans.
So I turned to writing software professionally (including the Engineering Software for a major defense contractor, SKF-MRC, where I wrote an RDBMS in C, then C++, then Java, when I found out that Dbase III+ was corrupting its indexes in as soon as the addition of the second record. I moved it to Java for the network capabilities and it is still extant.)
Then I wrote the Satellite Dispatch System for NFG in Buffalo, NY, (when it was at Lafayette Square), and was Lead Engineer in Rochester, NY, in charge of writing the software filters that consume West Group's markups to create the various forms of output that they sold, for instance for their "Lawyers Desk Reference" and "Physicians Desk Reference", for two years.
I finally finished with over 100 software projects to my credit, after more than 30 yrs.
But I never did get that BSEE / BSCS degree.
I tried to engage online at the Uni-level with MIT'S OCW, but without a hefty amount of money to buy the credit hours (last check that was $2300 / Cr Hr), you get nothing for the courses you watch but the learning. (EE on MIT'S free OCW is very thorough and very good. They provide full class lectures on youtube, provide the book they're using, and give you the class notes and labs, just as if you were there in person. In my case, the first course I watched was taught by an EE professor, Anant Agarwal, PhD, who had written a very good book entitled, "Foundations of Analog and Digital Electronic Circuits", specifically for the class. He is a very skilled instructor. And the second class in "Signals and Systems" was equally good. The 8 semesters of Calculus and Numerical Methods were finally starting to pay off.).
I don't know how many times I've gone back over the EE topics and problems, even up to today, wishing that I had been able to finish that BSEE.
Funny thing tho: the dream never died of designing and selling something I had engineered. And in fact, I have designed and simulated many, relatively simple circuits (< 100 components), some based on MIT research, and used an EDA to turn some of them into PCB's, distributing some in very limited quantities.
Today, I see the large number of companies who are struggling to find good, skilled technical people, but overlooking the vast population of people who almost got their degrees, but failed for whatever reason just shy of their goal. It seems to me that it would be much cheaper to bring in EE's who only need a few credits, but who know all the terminology, equipment, and practices, than to train up new EE's from a freshmen level.
And now I'm two yrs into learning Mandarin on DuoLingo.com, and that is a load of fun. Things have worked out pretty well for me. But the dream just won't go away.
Thank you for sharing your story about that D-. More than 10 years ago Jerry Bergman compiled and published many, many, tragic stories like yours. It is here: www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405
Craig explains that evolution is nothing more than changing allele frequencies and mutations subjected to natural selection. That's it, and so no theological implications. But that is a misunderstanding. Because his simple version of evolution is not core. Those mechanisms are sub hypotheses. They can be dropped. The evolution literature is full of many, many other mechanisms that have been proposed. All are forfeitable. So what is core to the theory? What cannot be dropped? The answer is naturalism. That is, the claim the natural laws and processes are sufficient to explain the world. It is a fact. That is evolution, and it entails theological claims that are non biblical. Your paper ran afoul of that theology.
@@VFA666 It makes sense a person would want to focus on a single area than trying to take own all the claims of naturalism. There are those who challenges the Big Bang for example.
I've even heard scientist themselves admit you need to give them a miracle and they will try to explain the rest. The idea that science (especially dealing with origins) has nothing to do with metaphysics is a lie. Even atheist believe in miracles.
I've heard scientist claim "we are stardust" which is a religious claim and not a scientific one. "Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" when it comes to theology but with naturalism you can make claims all day without credibility.
@@VFA666 What does medicine have to do with origins? Do you understand science works the best when dealing with the present? Science can't repeat the past so the best it can do is" use the present as the key to the past" but that key doesn't always fit.
Nature is not the same thing as naturalism. Do you understand when something is label artificial flavors it's still made up of atoms? We claim something is "artificial" when something it's not completely explain by naturalism ... like made by conscious beings, man. I don't have to reject nature in order to reject naturalism.
@@VFA666 “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” - Max Planck
But that is exactly what naturalist tries to do. It's like a dog chasing it's tail trying hard to sniff it's own butt.
@@VFA666 Do you understand Darwin named his book "The ORIGINS of the Species"? Are you really trying to claim evolution have nothing to do with origins?
The best you should work towards is to get the deistic undertones exposed, where God somehow with no objective in mind "allows" a mutation to be selected. Nature does not show that to be the case at all, it shows how each and every portion of the creation of all organisms is guided by God and achieves a teleology that is demonstrably not built into purely mechanistic processes. To prove this scientifically, you just need to assess the fact that single-celled organisms according to all purely mechanistic probabilities, would have to probabilistically weed out all other less probable organisms simply because in all past and known environments single-celled organisms are mechanistically superior at survival, they are the apex predator in all "niche" environments. This obvious Darwinian reality is not at all observed - they simply assume this because they assume their mechanisms applicable to existing life forms, they don't model actual probability spaces, they create biased niche probability spaces out of thin air. God's creation teems with many many less adapted, frail multi-cellular organisms persisting and surviving, not because they are just mechanistically more probable for some "niche environment". God worked his wonderfully creative way towards an ever-increasing level of consciousness and communion with each other and with Him, it is all about consciousness not about mechanistic survival. You can see this if you just realise that nervous systems and sensory abilities are not better at survival than the already optimal mechanistic interactions with all environments that all single-celled organisms present, it does not waste energy on any novelty, it is just the perfect survivors and predators. (Incidentally, arguments about niche environments are the worst kind of confirmation bias you can ever implement in any natural scientific effort, and this includes the concept of "emergent properties". It simply does not explain the observed phenomenon in a mechanistic way. God's word breathed life into each and every aspect of speciation, let alone God crafting the very first life forms, the most mechanistically perfect single-celled organisms, which he still uses symbiotically to protect humanity and all other life forms. But, when humanity is imparting their evil rebellion onto bacteria etc. like with anti-biotic resistance and genetically modified organisms, things go evil, and all life becomes at risk of extinction.
I hope this makes sense...
To me it even explains dinosaurs and extinction events as God crafted what he freely and artistically intended, God is not a mindless rational property machine, He is love and creativity in the ultimate personal reality whom He introduced to us and communes with us in the Triune Godhead.
Quote: "they don't model actual probability spaces, they create biased niche probability spaces out of thin air." Yep
@@VFA666 "Evolution never had to search through some ginormous search space." Correction, evolution never *could* search through some ginormous search space. "It only has to search the space immediately next to an already working configuration looking for small incremental improvements." Except that assumes "an already working configuration" and from it gradual pathways with ever-increasing fitness to the 10s of millions of designs in the astronomical design space; both of which are contradicted by science.
@@VFA666 You only need to ask which configuration is more probable to survive in any environment at any time during the existence of Earth, where mechanistic interactions form the only probability space. We all know a mind can change mechanistic probability spaces, but with Darwin that is not allowed.
Single-celled organisms have the most probable structure and dynamics to survive, now and during the entire existence of life on Earth. All other organisms introduce lower probable novelties and dependencies are not mechanistically viable at any point. You have to find other explanations, and the active implementation of intricate design strategies, able to overcome mechanistic probability realities, compared with the single-celled ecosystems of organisms, comes from minds that fit that necessary phenomenon. Single-celled organisms can have ad hoc symbiosis and competition, but single replicators with nano-structures are always more probable to survive.
Therefore, a mind actively orchestrated low probability configurations to change the probability space against the observable mechanics of lower probable outcomes.
Therefore the hand of God is necessary, especially in complex competition environments where novelty includes conscious and sensory interactions which are completely novel and unnecessary for gene propagation.
Even Thomas Nagel the philosopher describes fundamental teleology at work in nature and speciation.
Alvin Plantinga knows a mind has no survival benefit and uses sophisticated probability arguments to show that to be the case.
@@VFA666 My argument does not undermine any fossil evidence, it simply indicates the creative conscious inputs that are a physical reality for the creation of any species, and the fact that Enlightenment Humanists were blindly biased towards their own existence when they proposed a hypothesis, which fails over and over. The nature of the fossil record even shows Darwin's failure. When the Christian scientists laid the foundations of godly science they were drowned out by sophists who knew very little science and mathematics but were bug collectors arguing their human-centric anti-god ideologies.
They can be excused for methods and knowledge that only became known in the 20th century, but modern materialist has no scientific or philosophic support except their irrational bias towards their brand of humanism. The world is worse for that because the mechanistic consumerist outlook on humanity is pervasive and destructive, let alone our hubristic meddling with genetic manipulation research. The gene approach to life forms is extremely dangerous, simply because the intention of the code is far more important than the simple syntax of the code.
@@VFA666 Single-celled locomotion is optimal for survival not novelty. The energy expenditure and additional structural dependencies all form points of failure for multi-cellular locomotion is obvious.
Your bias and programming is not rational or scientific.
Hey thank you for the video. Your wisdom on this topic is really needed. I just wanted to thank you for what your doing.
Is he right on something?
Good question. Yes, he is. If you go back to the original video (linked in the Description section above), he is right @26:27-26:48. Or, go to this link, and listen for 20 seconds: ua-cam.com/video/W1Ub6Git8Dg/v-deo.html
@@DarwinsGod Right on what?
@@DarwinsGod As far as I know, most biologists are atheists. Not surprising.
@@joerdim Did you listen for just 20 seconds? He explained that most evolutionists are religious people.
@@DarwinsGod And as far as I know most biologists are atheists. And evolutionists most probably have the highest percentage among biologists.
Evolution is a religion. Not a fact.
Evolution is a scientifically established fact. If you claim that evolution contradicts bible it could only mean that bible is wrong.
Quote: "Evolution is a scientifically established fact." Why is that true?
@@DarwinsGod Because that is what science is all about - to establish truth.
@@XOPOIIIO I see. Evolution is a scientifically established fact because that is what science does, it establishes truth. Got it.
@@XOPOIIIO
Circular reasoning
@@DarwinsGod I don't like the description of evolution as a fact as usually facts are little piecemeal nuggets. Evolution is a pervasive theory, a larger narrative about the many facts and observations we have about the world around us.
I think it's a more coherent narrative than special creation. I assume you take the reverse position, I'm curious as to why. Would you mind explaining? If you take the time to reply would you mind including how much of evolution you accept and how much you reject and what version of special creation you adhere to?
WLC is soooo creepy
It is horrible that Craig is so totally, inexcusably IGNORANT of the truth on evolution.
How a guy with his education and reputation could possibly be so incredibly WRONG and appallingly ignorant is simply beyond belief.
Shame on him.