Replies

betty boop: "I thought this video was in large part a devastating critique of the epistemological basis on which Darwin's theory rests — epistemology being the "science" of knowledge itself — of what we know, how we know it, and how we validate it."

I have argued here from the beginning that the word "science", properly defined, has nothing to do with epistemology, ontology, metaphysics or even philosophy.
Science is simply a methodology for producing natural explanations for natural processes, period.
So the epistemological basis for science is simply: what works.
Science itself doesn't know and doesn't care about philosophical or theological issues it may stir up.

Of course, if Lewis simply said he didn't think the evidence supported Darwin's conclusions, that is science-talk, and a list of Lewis' objections could then be analyzed for its accuracy and relevance (no such list was mentioned in the video).
And we should note that since Lewis wrote, a lot of new data has been discovered which addresses many old objections.
For one example, DNA analysis strongly supports the idea of common descent.

betty boop: "C. S. Lewis is quoted as saying, 'Darwin and Spencer themselves stand on a foundation of sand, of gigantic assumptions and irreconcilable contradictions.' "

But again, since no specifics were mentioned, we can't address Lewis' concerns.
I'll stress again that there is much, much more data on evolution available today than in Lewis' time.

betty boop: "...it seems Lewis had no difficulty with the idea of evolution as a process "guided by a mind."

Precisely the point I've tried to make through all these posts.
But I'd also point out that it's irrelevant whether G*d intervenes on a moment-by-moment basis to "guide" nature, or whether nature simply unfolds (like a computer program) according to G*d's original instructions.

Indeed, my opinion is that nature itself probably simply unfolds per plan, while anything related to the human soul is a matter of G*d's great personal interest.

betty boop: "Lewis will have none of this.
He is depicted as being deeply troubled by the "fanatical and twisted attitudes" of Darwin's dogmatic defenders.
He charges them with dealing in "supposals," not facts.
He says that science is much more than the discovery of new facts."

All this presented breathlessly, as if it were some devastating rebuttal of science in general, and evolution in specifics.
But what Lewis calls "supposals" are nothing more than scientific hypotheses and theories.
These two words simply mean: explanations, the former being educated guesses based on available data, and the latter being confirmed explanations based on passing tests intended to falsify them.

And that's all science itself can ever do.
So if you wish to have epistemological or ontological or metaphysical certainty about evolution (or anything else), you'll just never find those in science.
For those, you have to look elsewhere -- to philosophy or to your religious faith.

betty boop: "He suggests that it is possible and desirable for science to look at the accumulated body of facts and seek a newer, better explanation of the facts already on hand, as warranted by new understandings."

Sure, that's just what science is supposed to do, every day.
But how often does mankind produce another scientific Newton or Einstein -- once a century?
New paradigms do not arrive every day, and in recent decades huge, huge new discoveries have all gone toward confirming basic evolution theory.
So there is not today a large and increasing volume of data falling outside the expectations of evolution.

betty boop: "Lewis notes that "an existing scientific paradigm or model limits you, blinds you in the asking of questions."
That Darwin's theory of evolution in particular "restricts what kinds of questions you can ask about nature."

And yet there were no specific examples offered by Lewis himself.
Those examples which were offered (i.e., "junk DNA" and tonsils), were certainly not depressed by "Darwinianism", but rather simply by a lack of knowledge.
Once new data falsified previous theories, new hypotheses were quickly developed to account for it.
That's exactly the way science is supposed to work.

betty boop: "Indeed. That is my very frustration with the theory: It seemingly prohibits all questioning outside of an acceptable, severely limited domain where everybody already agrees with everybody else.
Absolutely hermetically sealed minds here!"

In fact, there is no prohibition -- zero, zip, nada -- on asking serious scientific questions about evolution, or on doing the hard physical research (digging fossils, analyzing DNA, etc.) required to expand our understandings.

But if you insist on asking non-scientific questions (i.e., "does G*d exist?"), then those you will have to answer yourself, without much help from science.

betty boop: "What I find strange is it seems you agree with Lewis about his objection to "randomness."
But jeepers, dear BroJoeK, that's one-half of Darwin's entire theory, right there.
How does this "compute?" "

I'll say it again: the word "randomness" is simply science-speak for, "we don't understand it, maybe it's G*d's plan, but G*d is not science, so we say 'random' instead."
The truth is that video never did correctly define evolution theory, which is simply our descent with modifications from common ancestors based on the actions of natural selection.
If you simply add the word "G*d's" in front of "modifications" and "natural", then it seems to me that all of CS Lewis' concerns will be addressed.