What exactly did she say in the article that leads you to this conclusion?
“What exactly did she say in the article that leads you to this conclusion?”
“Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,... the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement?”
To suggest that the mind evolved to allow survival (which in turn requires it to function with some accuracy, and more accuracy in a creature that needs its mind to compensate for physical limitations) does not in any way suggest that the mind is incapable of discerning truth (accurate interpretations) in other areas.
In fact, a mind that has evolved to discern patterns that accurately predict future events (”If I see A then B then C, I am likely to be eaten unless I do D”) is likely to be a mind that can come to accurate conclusions based on partial information. That ability would allow it to make conclusions based on partial data and then test it in ways that would confirm accuracy (truth) or not.
My objection to speculation about things which may have happened millions of years ago is that the assumptions required for scientific respectability require no intervention by a supreme being. It rejects the possibility of a God Who Intervenes, then claims its conclusion prove its assumption.
But what the evolutionists say in the article does not prevent the use of the human mind to discover truth. There is no fatal contradiction in their statements.