Replies

Based on the quote of Gray in the article, Gray merely says the supposed evolution of the mind would be to have a mind that promotes survival, not philosophic truth. But that does not CONTRADICT a mind discovering philosophic truth.

“Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.”

Saying something serves evolutionary success does NOT imply it cannot find truth.

“You are an animal. Animals only need to survive and procreate. Animals do not know scientific truths. Therefore truth, in particular scientific truth, does not exist.” - angryoldfatman

Animals DO know scientific truth, if they (as humans) work to attain it. Scientific truth merely means an acceptable (but not necessarily totally accurate) explanation for what one sees and experiences. Science does not involve itself in attaining ultimate truth. It is involved in explanations of experience that match A & B together so long as no better explanation comes along.

Evolution may or may not be a totally accurate explanation for what we see, but perfection is not attained by science. That is the realm of math, perhaps, but not science.

I feel odd making this argument, since I’m not an evolutionist. But intellectual honesty is important. God is ill served by either dishonesty or bad thinking.

In any case, the pressures that might evolve a mind have little to do with how well that mind functions in math or philosophy. More than one invention has found its best use in something the inventor did not have in mind at the time.

It is not only the author making these claims. From the article:

... Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? ... Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.”

On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe ... that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.”

...

Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals ...undermines confidence in the scientific method.”

Just so. Science itself is at stake. John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that according to atheism, “the mind that does science ... is the end product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn’t trust it. So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science.”