I think you probably need to be a believer to believe (12). Andreas Wagner believes that certain kinds of changes are particularly hard to explain, but he also believes that he can explain them. In short, he believes in the problem but also believes it has a solution. Other evolutionary biologists think there is less of a problem to begin with.
I think he agrees with the premise, but he disagrees with my conclusion! The premise is simply that the neo Darwinian mechanism does not explain. He really does believe that. 1/3 of biologist agree with him, but not the popular evolutionary advocates.
I guess it depends on your definition of “neo-Darwinian mechanisms.” Most people hear that and think that all naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms are “neo-Darwinian.” Andreas Wagner presumably means something more specific by the phrase.
Yes, most popular discourse about evolution assumes that the Neo-Darwinian mechanism specifically is sufficient for a naturalistic explanation of life. But a solid third of biologists think that it doesn’t; they’re trying to find alternatives, and good luck to them, because naturalism depends on it!
… or else that third are wrong, and naturalism doesn’t depend on it at all. But, sure, for a narrow definition of “neo-Darwinian,” some nonreligious biologists agree with that statement in a very strict sense that is different to how most laypeople would interpret it.
My guess would be that most non-theistic philosophers who believe in moral truth believe that moral truth is anthropocentric (true given the sorts of creatures we humans happen to be; true in an intersubjective human sense), not objective, like scientific truth. Is that your understanding?
That is probably so, but it could be objective that human beings are worthy of moral respect, or that the states of conscious creatures really matter. Thomas Nagel would be an example who thinks that moral truth points to human beings being more than merely natural, in some sense.
Still, for theists who aren’t merely Divine Command theorists, we might agree with the anthropological basis for Kantian or utilitarian ethics.
In any case, rejection of pure relativism and belief in moral reality is a shared conviction. The question is then what follows about the world or human nature given the reality of moral truths. Does a merely naturalistic account of human beings in the world suffice to explain them?
Nice work! Paul also models this well, in a very different context, when he’s in Athens in Acts 17. A skilled Christian apologist can find areas of common agreement between the Christian perspective and any other given perspective on the planet.
Yes! Though it’s not just agreement between perspectives; it’s evidence from the world itself to which we have common access. Reality is common ground for argument, transcending our perspectives.
Excellent points. The video for #5 has two young people talking and in one place dismissing the existence of evil. They do not like that word. I am not a fan either, However, I wonder if their reticence to allow for the existence of evil is assumed because they have yet to encounter it in life. I thank God that they are unaware of its very real existence. I hope they are mature enough to recognize it when it invades their territory.
This is good because I really don’t think Christians should be making “Christian” arguments for their positions to outsiders, anymore.
Or, indeed, amongst ourselves. Now, I may be a heretical lunatic here, but I suspect that all of the commands given in the scriptures are, properly speaking, the correct *conclusions* that moral reasoning, done well, should arrive upon.
I think you probably need to be a believer to believe (12). Andreas Wagner believes that certain kinds of changes are particularly hard to explain, but he also believes that he can explain them. In short, he believes in the problem but also believes it has a solution. Other evolutionary biologists think there is less of a problem to begin with.
I think he agrees with the premise, but he disagrees with my conclusion! The premise is simply that the neo Darwinian mechanism does not explain. He really does believe that. 1/3 of biologist agree with him, but not the popular evolutionary advocates.
I guess it depends on your definition of “neo-Darwinian mechanisms.” Most people hear that and think that all naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms are “neo-Darwinian.” Andreas Wagner presumably means something more specific by the phrase.
Yes, most popular discourse about evolution assumes that the Neo-Darwinian mechanism specifically is sufficient for a naturalistic explanation of life. But a solid third of biologists think that it doesn’t; they’re trying to find alternatives, and good luck to them, because naturalism depends on it!
… or else that third are wrong, and naturalism doesn’t depend on it at all. But, sure, for a narrow definition of “neo-Darwinian,” some nonreligious biologists agree with that statement in a very strict sense that is different to how most laypeople would interpret it.
My guess would be that most non-theistic philosophers who believe in moral truth believe that moral truth is anthropocentric (true given the sorts of creatures we humans happen to be; true in an intersubjective human sense), not objective, like scientific truth. Is that your understanding?
That is probably so, but it could be objective that human beings are worthy of moral respect, or that the states of conscious creatures really matter. Thomas Nagel would be an example who thinks that moral truth points to human beings being more than merely natural, in some sense.
Still, for theists who aren’t merely Divine Command theorists, we might agree with the anthropological basis for Kantian or utilitarian ethics.
In any case, rejection of pure relativism and belief in moral reality is a shared conviction. The question is then what follows about the world or human nature given the reality of moral truths. Does a merely naturalistic account of human beings in the world suffice to explain them?
Very useful, Joel. Well done, and thanks.
Nice work! Paul also models this well, in a very different context, when he’s in Athens in Acts 17. A skilled Christian apologist can find areas of common agreement between the Christian perspective and any other given perspective on the planet.
Yes! Though it’s not just agreement between perspectives; it’s evidence from the world itself to which we have common access. Reality is common ground for argument, transcending our perspectives.
Excellent points. The video for #5 has two young people talking and in one place dismissing the existence of evil. They do not like that word. I am not a fan either, However, I wonder if their reticence to allow for the existence of evil is assumed because they have yet to encounter it in life. I thank God that they are unaware of its very real existence. I hope they are mature enough to recognize it when it invades their territory.
This is good because I really don’t think Christians should be making “Christian” arguments for their positions to outsiders, anymore.
Or, indeed, amongst ourselves. Now, I may be a heretical lunatic here, but I suspect that all of the commands given in the scriptures are, properly speaking, the correct *conclusions* that moral reasoning, done well, should arrive upon.