2012-08-30, 03:53 AM
Let's be charitable and do each other a favor here by being very clear what exactly each of us mean when we refer to the theory of evolution.
As I understand it, the theory claims that there is a process of mutation via reproduction whose products get filtered by natural selection. In plain words, whatever gets to live gets there by 1) chance, 2) suitability with the living environment.
It's not clear to me whether the scientific community intends for these 2 conditions to be necessary or sufficient, but let's assume both cases.
1. If they are a necessary condition, then the counterargument concludes something like: Living things don't have to be produced by chance or selected by suitability to be present in our time, the latter of which sounds like the classic "fate fighting" scenario to me but is regardless nonsensical. If we choose not to take natural selection for granted as a necessary condition for life and survival, we'd have a hard time making our case.
2. If they are a sufficient condition, then conversely, there must exist something that does not exist despite being both randomized and selected for. Likewise, my brain fails to grasp the possibility of extinction without an external cause (from the environment), so I'm inclined to pass this off as also a silly point to disagree on.
Now what was it that was so controversial about the theory again? Proof? Now it is easy to commit question begging in trying to prove these two claims (via proof by contradiction, I imagine), yes, but that doesn't mean it cannot be supported. The burden of proof rests on those actively making claims. The scientific community wants to validate the evolutionary theory, so they're expected to at least give a prima facie account in their favor. I believe they rest the argument on archaeology. I'm quite ignorant on the matter, but I imagine it can be argued via the scientific method: test the hypothesis for its predictive power. Natural selection being a necessary condition for survival seems to be supported (not proven) by that one case about butterflies with spots and various other simple (somewhat unethical) experiments, e.g. bringing a polar bear to a desert and watch it die. Support for natural selection and random mutation being sufficient conditions for survival, however, seems beyond me.
Though it cannot be settled in the strictest sense via empiricism, like all of science, evolutionary theory seems to have quite a bit going for it in terms of supporting evidence. To discredit the theory, that body of evidence needs to either be undermined or countered.
As I understand it, the theory claims that there is a process of mutation via reproduction whose products get filtered by natural selection. In plain words, whatever gets to live gets there by 1) chance, 2) suitability with the living environment.
It's not clear to me whether the scientific community intends for these 2 conditions to be necessary or sufficient, but let's assume both cases.
1. If they are a necessary condition, then the counterargument concludes something like: Living things don't have to be produced by chance or selected by suitability to be present in our time, the latter of which sounds like the classic "fate fighting" scenario to me but is regardless nonsensical. If we choose not to take natural selection for granted as a necessary condition for life and survival, we'd have a hard time making our case.
2. If they are a sufficient condition, then conversely, there must exist something that does not exist despite being both randomized and selected for. Likewise, my brain fails to grasp the possibility of extinction without an external cause (from the environment), so I'm inclined to pass this off as also a silly point to disagree on.
Now what was it that was so controversial about the theory again? Proof? Now it is easy to commit question begging in trying to prove these two claims (via proof by contradiction, I imagine), yes, but that doesn't mean it cannot be supported. The burden of proof rests on those actively making claims. The scientific community wants to validate the evolutionary theory, so they're expected to at least give a prima facie account in their favor. I believe they rest the argument on archaeology. I'm quite ignorant on the matter, but I imagine it can be argued via the scientific method: test the hypothesis for its predictive power. Natural selection being a necessary condition for survival seems to be supported (not proven) by that one case about butterflies with spots and various other simple (somewhat unethical) experiments, e.g. bringing a polar bear to a desert and watch it die. Support for natural selection and random mutation being sufficient conditions for survival, however, seems beyond me.
Though it cannot be settled in the strictest sense via empiricism, like all of science, evolutionary theory seems to have quite a bit going for it in terms of supporting evidence. To discredit the theory, that body of evidence needs to either be undermined or countered.