No WONDER we feel so desolate.
“A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent?”
Evolution is religion to those who follow it. It is not logical, and they don’t care.
“...the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth...”
It appears that statement is taken far too literally. It could also mean that it responds more favorably to success, irregardless of truth. As an example, some members of society have evolved to rely upon govt to survive, even when there is plenty of evidence it is not in their best interests. Their logical thought process has been rewired to favor dependence.
Perhaps?
Philosophy can lead to great insights into human nature, but it can also take us down some wild and woolly paths into error.
Basically, IMO, ideas should be tested empirically (by that I mean, “do they work?”), and otherwise just be thought of as interesting ideas that have not yet been proven well enough to apply to the living of our own lives, or ideologies. Just my opinion.
I’m not an evolutionist, but this article is a shining example of someone who doesn’t understand logic or reason.
Evolution has never been observed happening and thus cannot be tested. It cannot produce replicable results and provides no predictability. The theory itself cannont be falsified. And this is supposed to be science?
I hate Philosophy.
Too much thinking evolved <- get it : )
Instrumentalism claims that scientific theories are merely tools-instruments-by which human beings come to grip with nature. If a describes events, we retain it as useful.
Pragmatist secular humanists don't worry about truth and reality. As long as they believe that darwinism is useful for achieving their goals,then it is pragmatically true.It is a useful fiction and useful as a description.
so who says that survival strategy and truth strategy are mutually exclusive?
Personally, I think that the earth age conflict is one of the biggest tests the we have as humans.
I personally hold true to the plain written words of the Bible. The rest is all speculation.
In the end, I want it to be known that I trusted the Word of God over the intelligence of men.
About as devasting an an attack on evolution as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Okay, I get that Nancy Pearcey doesn’t like the philosophy of science, the scientific method or the theory of evolution. However, she is able to misrepresent all three. Beyond that, I really don’t have the foggiest idea what she is talking about. She does seem to want to scientifically deal with philosophical truths which, of course science cannot do. Complete gibberish otherwise.
This essay begins with: “A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask”
Um, the concept of evolution isn’t a ‘philosophy’ or ‘world view’ in the traditional, conventional sense. It’s a scientific hypothesis that people in the field of biology have been investigating and testing. It’s no more a ‘philosophy’ or ‘world view’ than plate tectonics or medicine is.
If people want to reject evolution I have no problem with that (although I don’t reject it) but we need to be sure we describe it correctly. This article doesn’t so it’s hard to read beyond it’s initial false premise.