tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post621136332904591979..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Darwinian evolution and determinismAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-91299143531925822572014-09-30T13:25:27.091-05:002014-09-30T13:25:27.091-05:00Professor Pruss, can you share the link to your pa...Professor Pruss, can you share the link to your paper "Western Monotheism and Evolution"? I cannot find it anywhere. Thanks!Hassan uz Zamanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007777906382378603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-54718185038330733372010-12-02T13:59:37.476-06:002010-12-02T13:59:37.476-06:00Doesn't Darwinian evolution give us an explana...Doesn't Darwinian evolution give us an explanation of why C is more likely than those other states, though?Dustin Crummetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14356151917921815698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-50887766176681496132010-12-01T21:29:54.059-06:002010-12-01T21:29:54.059-06:00That is a neat answer, and it's come up in the...That is a neat answer, and it's come up in the prosblogion discussion of the argument, too. I think the fragility of C militates against C being likely--pretty small modifications make C not be there, so for any state that has C, there are many nearby ones that don't.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-81506456425416514012010-12-01T20:01:02.062-06:002010-12-01T20:01:02.062-06:00I'm not entirely sure I understand everything ...I'm not entirely sure I understand everything that's going on in the argument, but why couldn't a response go something like this: we see C, and we judge it to be really unlikely. However, Darwinian evolution shows us that C follows from a lot of states that really aren't all that unlikely. Therefore, what Darwinian evolution shows is that C isn't nearly as unlikely as we thought it was.Dustin Crummetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14356151917921815698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-4044580918469313322010-12-01T07:22:58.560-06:002010-12-01T07:22:58.560-06:00I've had similar thoughts, and an issue relate...I've had similar thoughts, and an issue related to this is covered in <a href="http://telicthoughts.com/a-curious-intelligent-design-argument/" rel="nofollow">this blog entry</a>, in a limited way. In that entry, Michael Ruse is quoted arguing that the arrival of 'intelligent, moral' beings is supposed to be ridiculously low on Darwinism - in fact, he argues (though I don't think he understands the consequences of what he's saying) that to make the arrival of "intelligent, moral" beings likely on Darwinism, you'd have to embrace some variant of the multiverse theory. Ruse is trying to urge Christians to reject an omniscient, omnipotent God and accept multiverses in order to be true to Darwinism while remaining "Christian", but going by his words alone he seems to be giving an intelligent design argument unintentionally.<br /><br />Of course, the other side of the problem is that if the odds of arriving at T1 'at random' is high, that would imply directionality in the processes and mechanisms of evolution, wouldn't it? Which, again, Ruse himself regards as also being friendly to theism, even though he doesn't want to go down that road (in part because he thinks it goes against the commitments of Darwinism.)<br /><br />That seems to be a Catch-22 for naturalism, doesn't it? If the universe is such that the arrival of humans is taken to be likely, then evolution starts to look like a teleological process - which of course naturalists don't want. But if the arrival of humans is taken to be unlikely, then the fact that we're here becomes puzzling and design of a different variety is inferred.<br /><br />My main problem with Darwinian evolution on this front is that the only way it seems to help out the naturalist is through assuming the one thing that no lab experiment could ever hope to demonstrate - that there was no design or intention in the way evolution unfolded. (After all, evolutionary principles are used by some programmers - we can imagine that to God, evolution could or would just be another means to an end.) Without that assumption smuggled in, Darwinism seems to be of almost no use to the naturalist re: design. (Putting aside Problem of Evil complaints.)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-45387900024768828312010-11-30T10:54:34.230-06:002010-11-30T10:54:34.230-06:00I posted a different version of the same basic poi...I posted a different version of the same basic point <a href="http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2010/11/did-darwin-unde.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.com