(June 15, 2017 at 11:58 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(June 15, 2017 at 4:55 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That's just turnabout for calling WLC a narcissistic sociopath. You may be right that both could be true in different respects, it's just that I've heard too many gratuitous "just-so" stories based on evolutionary theory.
Actually, I have this problem with evolution, as well.
Very much of it represents a narrative. For example, where did eyes come from? The narrative is that photosensitivity leads to this or that (totally hypothetical) advantage in early micro-organism, and then this and that development was suited to this or that environment.
It's all plausible, and I very much believe in evolution. However, when the ability to establish a plausible narrative is taken in lieu of actual evidence showing how and why eyes evolved, or experimental results in a lab, then we have to be VERY careful to keep that differentiation clear, right from the beginning. That's not always done sufficiently, in my opinion.
Another example is the evolution of mind. The evolutionary narrative is that as creatures grew more complex, there was an evolutionary advantage to their being able to experience their environment-- so mind, of course, is a result of natural evolutionary processes. What they don't explain, even a little bit, is what about the Universe allows for the existence of mind, or how it is that this or that system becomes capable of sustaining it. When a p-zombie is functionally equivalent to a subjective agent, then you need more than a nice story to explain the existence of subjective agency.
As for Craig-- I've seen him establish the philosophical basis of the God idea, and THEN when not challenged at that stage, go on to explain why the Biblical Christian God is the most likely candidate. That's quite the bait and switch. But up to that point, I think he makes the right kind of arguments, and quite well.
You need to watch the award-winning documentary by NOVA called "Judgment Day":
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/i...trial.html
During the trial, Dr. Michael Behe, an "expert" witness for the defense, was asked about the evolution of the human immune system, claiming that there was no scientific evidence for that. Plaintiff counsel then asked Dr. Behe, who was under oath, if he had read "such and such" peer-reviewed scientific paper on the evolution of the human immune system, to which Behe replied, "No". The attorney began piling paper after paper on the witness stand next to Behe, and along the way, introduced a medical textbook or two which had a chapter devoted to the subject, asking Behe, for each one, if he had read it. Finally, the pile started growing to the point that it was about to tip over, and so, the questioning had to stop!
