Shades of Creationism 3

Well, let us start up. Why don't we start with prayer.

Father God, thank you for this day.

Thank you for this opportunity that we can gather together and think about you.

I ask, Lord, that this class would be edifying to the body,

that we would glorify you with our interactions,

and that we would be able to leave today with a better understanding of our fellow Christians.

In Jesus' name, amen.

Okay, so, as, you know, it's tradition now.

Let's do preamble.

So, the preamble today is basically can be summed up as, I'm inadequate.

So, this is a very complicated discussion,

and as I was preparing for today's class,

I realized that I had to truncate a whole bunch of things

to fit everything in that I wanted to fit in.

And so, I guess what I want to say is that

if a specific point that I'm making or argument that I'm making

doesn't sound particularly persuasive in the way that I have articulated it,

just know that there is an entire book on that argument that you can read

that will most likely make more sense than the way I'm putting it together.

Although, who knows? I mean, I don't know.

Okay, so with that being said, let's start our final class today,

which is going to actually start touching on what I've been hinting at in the subtitle,

which is Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution.

The last two classes, we've been dealing with sort of the historical background.

What do I mean when I say Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution?

What kind of arguments are they making?

Last class, we talked about how different biblical interpretations of Genesis

can either leave room for or not leave room for evolutionary mechanisms,

among many other things.

And now we're going to deal with the positions themselves.

But before we do that, I'd like to start with just a very simple crash course

in scientific reasoning.

Okay, so just as an explainer of how there can be differences of opinion

when it comes to scientific information,

and what does that even mean, right?

And a question that was asked in the first class,

or was it the second class?

You know, they all rub together now.

There was the question of, you know,

how can we have different interpretations of science, essentially?

And I want to explain a little bit about how that is.

So how is science actually done, right?

That is the question.

Science is very fruitful.

But it's not that science is something that does not require interpretation

or other forms of communication.

So as Christians, we believe in what is called the correspondence view of truth, right?

Which means that for something to be true, it has to correspond to reality, right?

So that is actually pretty straightforward.

But I'm just going to posit that because all of the scientific reasoning

that we are going to be talking about today,

and a lot of the arguments flowing from that,

are assuming this view of truth.

That there is something real.

There is something called reality.

reality that when we understand it,

we can gain knowledge that is true, right?

And so in science, what we're trying to do

is actually get a little piece of this reality,

get a glimpse of it,

using repetition, instrumentation,

eliminating variables,

among a whole host of other things, right?

So if I was going to try to diagram it,

it would look something like this.

We have this thing called reality, right?

It's real, you know, by definition.

Here's this thing called reality.

And in science, what we're trying to do

is we're trying to observe

some facet of this reality

using instruments, often.

You know, I mean, back in the day,

they would just use their eyeballs.

But I guess if you could, you know,

in a certain sort of reductive way,

call your eyeballs instruments, right?

But yeah, we're going to be observing reality,

some facet of reality.

Based on this observation,

this is going to give us some sort of data output, right?

And this is what kind of output you get

is going to be dependent

what kind of instrument you're using

and the way that you're trying to observe, right?

Because, believe it or not,

the observation itself

is not necessarily the data output,

although observation is a form of data, right?

But oftentimes,

the instrument is observing something

and it tells us something

about what it's observing, right?

Finally, on top of this data output,

we're going to be interpreting the output, right?

So we get this number

or this picture

or this, you know,

solution

or pellet,

whatever it is.

We get some sort of output

and on top of this output,

we are going to be

interpreting the data

to make sense

in what we already know

about the world,

to posit new facets

of how the world is working

based on the output you've gotten.

And on top of this interpretation,

we're now going to be building a worldview, right?

So this is the layer,

the layers of scientific reasoning, okay?

And so

in most scientific circles,

this is sort of seen as a,

unbreakable chain, right?

The reality

necessarily leads to,

leads to the observation,

which necessarily leads to this data output,

which necessarily

is interpreted correctly this way,

which necessarily means

in a big worldview sense,

X, right?

So,

but is that necessarily true?

Do we have to,

is it an unbreakable chain?

And, you know,

people who,

so I guess I should say

maybe the popular view of science

is that this is an unbreakable chain,

right?

People who are actually doing science

know that,

you know,

these chains are often

very, very weak.

And so,

oftentimes,

a lot of what we're trying to do

is

determine how,

you know,

how can we reliably say

that this X equals this,

right?

So,

what's the Christian's responsibility

in all of this,

right?

So,

we've talked over the last few classes

about the fact that

Scripture being our highest authority,

we were committed to the claims of Scripture,

but also Scripture testifies

to the reliability

of what we can learn from nature,

right?

And because we affirm

Scripture,

we,

in some sense,

Christians are responsible

for the realities of nature.

So,

at a very base level,

Christians are responsible

to the truth of this,

right?

This thing here,

reality,

is real,

right?

And Christians have to affirm that

at the very least,

right?

Secondly,

I would say,

to a lesser extent,

Christians are,

have to be,

by way of being intellectually honest,

we have to at least

affirm

the observations

with the instruments

and the data

that the instruments put out,

right?

Now,

the reason I say

to a lesser extent

is because

these observations

with instruments

are not the reality themselves.

These are ways

of getting at the reality

and scientists know

depending on the instrument

you use,

the reality may look different.

Depending on

the way that you use

the instrument,

the data output

might be different,

right?

And so,

these are

extrapolations

from the reality,

but they're not

the reality itself.

So,

I think,

at the very least,

Christians need

to be able to say,

yes,

there is something real

that scientists

are observing

or trying to observe

that I,

as a Christian,

must say,

that is true.

Okay?

If we think about

our last class,

this is where

the differences

between the philosophical

views about

balancing general

and special revelation

comes in

because maybe

you're thinking

about the first group

that I talked about

which would be

the science skeptics

and the science skeptics

would say,

really,

there is no way

to get from reality

to observations

with instruments,

right?

I mean,

like,

they get stuff right

sometimes,

but there really

isn't any consistent

way to get at this,

right?

But I think

most Christians

would consider

it their responsibility

to affirm

that there is

a reality

that is being

observed with

instruments

and it is putting

out some sort

of information,

okay?

So,

but,

what about

these next levels?

The interpretation

of output

and the worldview

based on Pata.

Now,

everybody,

all Christians

of all stripes,

right,

whether they be

intelligent design

advocates,

theistic evolutionists,

creationists,

they are all

going to say

the worldview,

the interpretation

to worldview

connection

is not,

is not something

that we as Christians

need to affirm

and oftentimes

we as Christians

need to fight

against that

interpretation,

right?

Even a theistic

evolutionist

would be arguing

that the scientific

materialism

that often results

from the interpretations

of the data

is not warranted.

It's a philosophical,

metaphysical argument

that is not,

that is maybe

is understandable

in light of the data

but is not required,

right?

And so,

we would all argue,

boom,

this connection

we as Christians

can argue against

and often should

be arguing against

of all stripes,

right?

obviously,

as Christians

we have to at least

argue against

scientific materialism,

right?

Otherwise,

you know,

that assumes

there is no God,

right?

And as Christians

that, you know,

puts us in a weird

position.

So,

now secondly,

now this is where

a lot of the

disagreements come in

between Christians.

As I said before,

most people would argue

that the data output

that comes out

from our observations

is something that

we need to affirm

is real in some sense,

right?

With qualifications,

right?

And scientists know

all the qualifications,

right?

Everybody,

I mean,

I don't know

about the other

scientists in the room,

but I do get annoyed

when you read

a scientific publication

and then you read

the news articles

from the scientific

publication,

right?

We've all had

this experience

in the scientific

community where you're

like,

oh man,

they did not get it.

You know,

they're not making

the kinds of

qualifications

that are necessary

to get at the

accuracy of what's

going on.

Yeah,

you could understand

the data that they

put out in the way

that you're describing,

but nobody would

actually argue that

that's actually

what's going on.

Okay?

So,

we're all familiar

with that,

but qualifications

in mind,

there are basically

two different groups

understanding

how are we going

to argue

against this

interpretation

of output.

There are Christians

who say,

this interpretation

of output

is very reliable,

right?

And then there

are Christians

who say,

I am not required

to accept this

and I'm going

to argue

my own case

against it

based on the data,

right?

So,

and this actually

comes down

to

the second

tension in creation

as I've been

talking about.

But I guess I just

want to get across

in this section

here that

it's not just

Christians who

need to be

skeptical about

this chain of

reasoning,

right?

And it's not just

Christians who are

skeptical.

Scientists are

often very

critical of

other scientists'

interpretation of

data,

especially if

your interpretation

of your own

data differs

with their

interpretation,

right?

That's when the

gloves come off

and the fighting

really begins

metaphorically.

So,

you know,

hopefully metaphorically.

So,

yeah,

we all argue

about the

interpretation of

the data.

The question is

at what point

should Christians

affirm so-called

consensus in

the interpretation

of the data?

versus not,

right?

So,

what's this

second tension

in creationism

all about?

Okay?

So,

the second tension

in creationism

I'm going to

talk about

has to do

with God's

activity,

right?

What is God's

activity?

How can we

understand it?

So,

first of all,

Christianity

asserts

that

God is active

in the world.

world.

So,

I'm just

going to

leave that,

you know,

we're going

to just

assume that

as Christians.

But how

can we,

how are we

supposed to

understand

this activity,

right?

There's actually

been a lot of

discussion

on these

arguments

with much

of the

talking

surrounding

it

talking about

what could

or could not

be a miracle.

when are we

talking about

miracles,

when are we

talking about

just regular

activity?

Is everything

a miracle?

Right?

Some Christians

would argue

yes,

right?

There is no

such thing

as like a

natural law

that has

its own

abilities,

its own

functions,

it has

ingrained

causal

abilities.

Everything

is God's

active

activity.

So,

in a sense,

everything is

a miracle,

right?

The fact

that the

laws of

nature

are in

force

is because

not that there

is such a

thing as

the law

of nature,

only because

God is

doing

the thing

that we

as scientists

observe and

say,

okay,

this is a

regular thing,

we're going

to call

this the

law of

nature,

right?

Now,

there has

been

disagreement.

Evangelical

Christians

generally

arrive at

a picture

that separates

God's

ordinary

providence

God

working

through

secondary

causation,

this is

God's

sort of

what I

was just

describing,

sustaining

the world

and its

regularities

and existence,

right?

And we

have a lot

of biblical

evidence that

this is what

God does,

okay?

So,

pretty much

everybody agrees

on this

point,

right?

That God

does sustain

the way

that the

world works,

right?

Nothing

that came

into being

would come

into being

without God

and Jesus

sustaining it,

upholding the

world,

as it were,

right?

And so

the idea

of ordinary

providence

is that

God,

in his

foreknowledge

and in

his power,

creates

things or

sustains

things using

secondary

causes,

right?

So he

creates,

for instance,

physical

things that

have certain

properties ingrained

in the physical

things that

behave with

the laws of

nature in a

certain way,

right?

Does that make

sense?

So,

in a sense,

so maybe a

way of

understanding

ordinary

providence is

to say that

when God

says that

he knit

you in

your mother's

womb,

he was being

honest,

right?

But we

also know

how,

you know,

kids,

look away

from the

thing,

how egg

and sperm

work,

right?

How embryonic

development

works,

how placental

biology

works,

right?

We know all

that stuff.

I mean,

you will

eventually.

So,

we know how

that works,

but at the

same time,

we also

understand that

it is God's

sustaining work

that maintains

the pregnancy.

It is God

active in the

secondary causes

that makes the

pregnancy work,

and this is

throughout all

of Scripture,

right?

The birth of

Isaac,

the birth of

John the

Baptist.

These are all

instances where

the people in

these situations

attribute the

pregnancy to

God's direct

activity,

but it

wasn't a

virgin birth

or a virgin

conception like

Jesus,

right?

You know,

the husband and

wife really did

love each other,

right?

So that's a way

of understanding

ordinary providence,

which all

Christians affirm.

But there is

an idea of

what's called

extraordinary

providence,

which is God's

primary activity

in the world.

And so how

can we understand

extraordinary

providence?

This is describing

God's work in

history that

extends beyond

the regular

activity in the

world, which

would include

what we would

call miracles,

right?

So we all

understand how

a baby is

conceived and

born, but we

don't understand

how, based

on just

secondary

causation,

water can

turn into

wine.

Does that

make sense?

So this is

an activity.

Water, in

general, doesn't

turn into

wine, right?

You usually

need some

grapes and

some thyme,

et cetera,

right?

But this

isn't to say

that God

necessarily

disappeared

the water

and then

reappeared

wine in

its place.

He transformed

water into

wine without

using the

normal natural

processes,

right?

He uses

primary causation

in some way.

And the

reason we

call miracles

miracles is

because they

go beyond

the normal

activity of

the world,

right?

You know,

basically

resurrections

are astounding

because dead

people have

a propensity

to stay

dead, right?

In our

normal

experience.

Now, there

actually is a

lot of

discussion,

you know,

does this

require God

to break

his own

laws,

right?

This is a

long-standing

argument among

philosophers of

religion.

In fact,

this very

question is

one of the

driving forces.

In the first

class, we

talked about

the fundamentalist

modernist

divide,

right?

Where there's

a lot of

philosophical

arguments going

on, and

one of them

was among

modernists,

the argument

that extraordinary

providence is

impossible,

right?

Extraordinary

providence is

impossible because

this would

require God

to break

his own

laws, and

that's an

inconsistency in

his character,

right?

Now, of

course, if you

follow that

logically down

the slide,

then you

stop believing

in the virgin

birth, you

stop believing

in the

miracles of

Jesus, the

resurrection of

Jesus, and

this is how a

lot of the

theologians,

such as

Bultman,

slid into

agnosticism,

if not outright

atheism,

because if

you argue

that there

is no

such thing

as a

possibility

of such

a thing

as a

miracle,

then you

come up

against those

miracles in

the Bible,

right?

So, now

the argument

is, so

most Orthodox

Christians really

aren't arguing

at this level,

we're usually

arguing at the

next level,

which is,

when is it

appropriate for

us to appeal

to an

ordinary versus

an extraordinary

called providence,

right?

And so, like I

said before,

some Christians

would argue that

everything is

extraordinary

providence,

right?

God is doing

everything actively

all the time,

not in a

sustaining way

using secondary

causation, but

in a primary

way, right?

That's one way

of understanding

it.

But, generally,

that is not,

that is,

that is not

really going to

be playing a

major role

in the sort

of evolution,

theistic evolution,

intelligent design

arguments,

right?

Although that

is a part,

so, you know,

if you're going

to be reading

the literature,

this is going

to come up.

So, but

basically,

when it comes

down to the

science of faith

discussion,

you really get

generally two

groups, right?

You get one,

you get your,

what I'm calling

providential

creationists,

which, after

having made

the PowerPoint

and all the

outlines, I

realized that I

used providence

in a different

way, just like

a slide ago.

Anyways, I was

too lazy to

redo everything.

So, I'm going

to call them

providential

creationists, but

this is basically

the argument that

God universally,

in creation,

is using secondary

causation.

He's using ordinary

providence, right?

So, God

imbued

nature with

certain properties

that is capable

of bringing to

fruition that

which he wants

to come to

fruition, okay?

In creation.

Generally, this

also is,

this also comes

with, or is a

result from,

a high confidence

in science's

ability to explain

all phenomena,

right?

So, we, you

know, we live

in a time where

science is able

to explain a

whole bunch of

different things.

And so, in the

minds of scientists

and non-scientists

alike, there is

this view that

given enough time

and enough effort,

all phenomena

that we see or

can observe can

be explained,

can be interpreted

in some sort of

naturalistic way or

in a way that

comes down to

natural things

doing natural

things resulting

in natural

things, right?

So, this is that

mechanism, that's

that assumption

of methodological

naturalism, right?

Which assumes

that in science

we're going to be

talking only about

natural causes

doing natural

things, right?

And so, if science

has made a lot of

inroads using this

assumption of

methodological

naturalism, which

again, is not like

in the bylaws of

science, but it is

philosophically an

assumption, then

maybe that will

just continue

forever and

we'll get

everything pretty

timed in.

Yeah, Ivor?

Does this put

aside God's

sovereignty?

mean, he has to

abide by certain

rules.

If he's a

sovereign of the

universe, he can

do whatever he

wants.

In principle, yes.

But the argument

they would argue

is that

God in his

foreknowledge

created materials

that in his

sovereignty would

bring to fruition

what he wanted

to bring, right?

So it's not like

he's restricting

himself.

They're saying

God is front

loading in his

creation everything

that's necessary

to bring what he

wants to bring,

right?

There's nothing

lacking in nature

to do what God

wants it to do.

Does that make

sense?

It's a sort of a

best...

In a sense, it's

limiting God with

that explanation.

I mean, that's a

way of understanding

it.

I think they would

argue that that is

a reverse...

They would argue

that that's...

What you're saying

is a limitation of

God because what

you're saying is

that God couldn't

create something

that could do what

he wants it to do.

He would have to

actively intervene,

right?

I'm not saying that

that's a very...

I'm not saying that

that's the correct

argument.

Yeah, I mean,

right.

It's a philosophical

disagreement, right?

And it's going to

come down to batting

back and forth in

that way.

So along with

science's ability

to explain information

or the phenomena,

there's also sort of

an assumption of a

causally closed

universe.

If you're a

philosophy-minded

person, basically

that means that

everything is in a

chain of cause and

effect and that

that chain of cause

and effect can't be

broken.

Anyways, if you're

interested in that,

you can ask the

question afterwards.

That's problematic.

It is problematic.

So Orthodox

Christians will

acknowledge that

extraordinary providence

is a thing, but

they tend to

restrict this to

what they would

consider theologically

important situations,

right?

So they would say,

oh yeah, to be an

Orthodox Christian,

you have to believe in

the virgin birth of

Jesus Christ and his

resurrection.

These are miracles.

These are instances

of extraordinary

providence, but

these are occurring

because God has a

human audience that

he is then trying to

give theological

information to,

right?

And in creation, we

don't have that

argument.

That's their argument.

The next group is

what I'm calling

designing creationists,

which again, I'm

actually not very

happy with that idea.

Yeah.

Lay down,

Amos.

Question on the

last slide.

Yeah.

How does quantum

mechanics play a role

in these arguments

where there are

phenomena that don't

have?

How's that?

Yeah.

So that's a great

question.

In fact, in Alvin

Plantaga's book,

Where the Conflict

Really Lies, he's

going to argue that

a causally closed

universe is

scientifically, well,

philosophically

unwarranted,

scientifically unwarranted,

and now, given our

understanding of quantum

mechanics, doesn't

really make any sense

because we're not

talking about strict

cause and effect,

we're talking about

probabilities of

effect.

There are some

arguments against

that.

I don't have enough

time to go into

how some

interpretations of

quantum mechanics

result in

potentially a still

causally closed

universe.

They would argue

that the particles

themselves, while

acting unpredictably,

have their own

causally determined

properties that are

then resulting in

what we would call

unpredictability,

which on that

back end is not

actually unpredictable.

Those are very

in the multiverse

direction, right?

Yeah, I mean, they

go multiverse, or

they're going to

argue about

different fundamental

properties of the

particles themselves,

and how the

particles themselves

are then, how

they come into

being, right?

So you can imagine

a situation when you

have a chain of

cause and effect

that produces this

particle that then

has unpredictable

properties that, on

the macro scale,

events in phenomena

that are then

understandable under

cause and effect.

So they would

bring the causally

closeness back

words.

Does that make

sense?

If it doesn't make

sense, it's because

it barely makes

sense to me.

But moving on,

we got designing

creationists.

I like that question

that Amos, by the

way.

Designing

creationists, as you

might imagine,

believe that God

creates through a

combination of

primary and

secondary causation.

And we're talking

about creation

here, right?

Because I just

mentioned, Orthodox

Christians who are

of the providential

stripe will acknowledge

extraordinary stuff, but

only in really

theological situations,

right?

But designing

creationists are more

comfortable with God

having primary and

secondary causation in

creation.

Usually, this is

accompanied with a

less sanguine

outlook on what

science could

ultimately predict.

They would believe

that science will

not be able to

explain all

phenomena.

And therefore,

they would also

posit a causally

unclosed universe.

But again, the

philosophy of that is

weird.

But anyways, they

would say that they

would be looking for

recognizable signs of

God's activity in

nature because they're

going to be open to

primary causation in

creation if not

looking for it.

And Orthodox

Christians of this

position, they also

will affirm ordinary

providence and how

important it has been

in history.

They just don't think

it's the whole

McCoy.

It's not the whole

picture.

So, with that

background in mind,

just keep those two

groups sort of in

your mind.

I mean, it's pretty

obvious how they

cash out in the

theistic evolution

versus Intel

design argument.

But it is going to

be interesting, I

think, at the end

to bring it all

home to what I

think is this

disagreement about

what does it mean

for God to be

active in creation.

So, let's talk

about theistic

evolution.

I'm going to

give an overview

of how theistic

evolution arguments

generally work.

And then I'm going

to give two

arguments.

I'm looking at the

time.

I'm going to give

two arguments for

theistic evolution.

And then I'm going

to go over what

are usually the

general critiques of

the view.

And then I'm going

to do the same for

intelligent design.

And then I'm going

to close.

So, we're going to

go quick.

All right.

So, what is the

basic form of a

theistic evolutionary

argument?

I'm going to call

it TE just to save

my mouth.

So, baseline, as we

talked about on

class one, they're

going to assume the

verifiable truth of

macroevolution.

Okay?

So, just, that's

that.

So, we're not really

going to try to

think about it not

being true.

They're going to

assume that it's

true.

Okay?

So, if we go back

to our thoughts of

scientific reasoning,

they accept the

interpretations of

the data output of

a variety of

different sources,

anthropology,

paleontology,

biology, geology.

Anyways, therefore,

usually the argument

comes in two

propositions,

generally.

Right?

The propositions are,

one, the evolutionary

interpretation of the

science is true, and

two, the biblical

account is also true.

Right?

So, these two, this is

the basic form of the

argument, right?

Not all of their

arguments are for these

specific propositions,

but that's generally

how it goes.

So, usually, when you

read TE literature,

you're going to be

looking at two

specific elements of

evolutionary thinking

paired with a

specific overlap area

of theology.

So, for instance, to

give an example,

you know, proposition

one could be evolution

of humanity is true

versus proposition

two, man was made in

the image of God.

Okay?

Those both are true.

The TE position is

now I'm going to

explain why that can

be true.

Does that make sense?

So, you know, just

plug in any

evolutionary

interpretation in here,

plug in any

biblical interpretation

here that you think

are going to overlap

and then your argument

is these are going to

be coherent.

Okay?

Somehow.

Right?

And then the specifics

of how that works is

going to depend on the

specific argument being

made and how they make

that argument, obviously.

So, I don't have time to

go through a lot of

these different arguments.

arguments.

I want to give you two

high-level arguments.

Oh, I already said that.

Okay.

So, just imagine that I'm

saying it again.

And they're going to work

about philosophically,

theologically.

Again, right?

Because it's not a

scientific position, TE.

It is a philosophical,

theological position.

Right?

So, the concert of

these two propositions

is going to come down

to the philosophy,

interpretation, etc.

So, I want to give

two big-picture arguments.

These two big-picture

arguments, I think,

give us an understanding

of the macro-level

argument for the big

picture of evolution

and the big picture

of scripture.

Right?

So, these are going to

basically come down to

evolution occurred

and two, God created

the world.

Right?

So, these are the two

propositions that I'm

going to be dealing with

with two different kinds

of arguments.

And then, just to give

you a flavor about how

this cashes out,

and then we're going to

talk about criticisms.

Again, the breadth

of this position is so

wide that you're going

to find people who

will argue these two

propositions in

completely different

ways.

And then they're going

to argue with each

other over how your

solution to this

problem, or this

coherence, is wrong,

but mine is right.

Okay?

So, I'm not pretending

to sort of present

this is the unified

front of theistic

evolution.

In fact, probably the

two arguments I'm going

to put forward

forward, they're not

mutually exclusive,

but the people who

would argue for one or

the other probably

wouldn't agree with

each other.

So, anyways, again,

that's just the nature

of this position.

So, the first one is

going to be pretty

hard, and it's going

to be dry.

So, prepare yourself.

This is a philosophical

argument.

Okay?

So, and I've tried to

boil it down, but again,

there's an entire book

on it.

So, the book you're

going to want to read

if you want more on

this is Where the

Conflict Really Lies

with Alvin Plantinga,

where he famously

puts forward this

argument.

So, this is how the

argument goes.

Humans have cognitive

faculties such as

memory, perception,

intuition, introspection,

testimony, sympathy,

moral sense, etc.

You can go along the

lines, and we all

intuitively understand

our cognitive faculties

to be mostly reliable.

Right?

We believe that our

memories are able to

give us reliable

information, if not

perfect information.

We believe that our

ability to perceive the

world is perceiving a

real world.

It's not an imaginary

world.

Right?

We make predictions

based on these.

Our intuition about

logic, mathematics,

these are what we

consider to be reliable.

Our introspection about

our own mental states,

our own thoughts and

feelings, we believe is

reliable, etc.

We can learn from

testimony from other

people to teach us

things.

Now, here's where it

gets complicated.

Naturalism, which I'm

going to call N because

I didn't have space on

the slide to keep on

writing naturalism.

Naturalism N posits

that these faculties are

merely neurophysiological

properties.

Okay?

Now, depending on how

you make the argument

from materialism, you're

going to either be a

reductive or an irreductive

unreductive?

Nonreductive.

That's the one.

Some prefix reductive

materialist, right?

You're going to be

arguing either that the

mental, the cognitive

faculties are

neurophysiological

properties or that they

are neurophysiological

properties that also

unrelatedly produce a

mental state that has

some sort of content.

Again, there's an entire

book.

Read it.

For the time being,

naturalism posits

faculties are merely

neurophysiological

properties.

Okay?

That's one.

Two, evolution, which

I'm calling E, does not

select for faculties that

are true.

They select for only

advantageous behaviors.

Right?

Evolution doesn't care

whether you think that

your mental states or

that your ability to

remember five seconds

ago is true.

They only care that you

don't do stuff that's

going to get you killed.

Does that make sense?

Right?

So you could believe

anything.

You could believe that

everything in the whole

world is purple.

Right?

But as long as you eat,

as long as you reproduce,

as long as you survive and

are able to function,

you're going to be doing

well in life.

Okay?

This is a well-known

effect of evolution that

it only selects for

functional behavior.

It does not select for

content.

Right?

So, this is where it

gets confusing, but

follow with me.

If naturalism and

evolution are both true,

then we have good reason

to believe that our

mental faculties are not

reliable.

Because there are

neurophysiological

properties that are only

selected based on their

fitness.

They're not selected based

on their connection to

reality.

Right?

How close your

neurophysiological properties

are to a quote-unquote

truth is unrelated to how

they're going to affect

your fitness in the

evolutionary process.

That's the argument.

So, if both

naturalism and evolution

are both true, and we

have good reason to

believe that, to doubt

our own cognitive

faculties, then that

means that we have a

reason to doubt our

understanding that

naturalism and evolution

are true, or any

proposition is true.

Therefore, if naturalism

and evolution are both

true, then we have a good

reason to believe that

they are both not true.

Does that make sense?

Sort of.

Does that make sense?

Again, this is an

argument.

Right?

So, this isn't a given.

Alvin Plantinga is arguing

that this is true.

So, if you read his book,

he's going to argue for the

fact that naturalism posits

neurophysiological

properties.

He's going to argue that

evolution does not select

for true cognitive

faculties, only faculties that

are advantageous

behaviorally.

right?

I find his arguments

persuasive.

You may not, but this is

how the argument goes.

Right?

Does that make sense to

everybody?

How if evolution is both,

if naturalism and evolution

are both true, then naturalism

and evolution are both

false.

Does that make sense?

So, how does the theistic

evolution get in here?

Sorry, go ahead.

Before you even went on to

your second statement there,

it says evolution does not

select for faculties that are

true, only those that

produce advantageous

behaviors.

You could have stopped

right there and I would

have said, oh yeah,

that's totally contradictory.

Yes.

Yeah.

But, remember, this is a

philosopher.

He can't stop there.

He's got to go, he's got to

have at least nine different

parts to his syllogism.

Otherwise, other philosophers

will say, hey.

Sorry, yeah.

I just wanted to, it's not

just Alvin Plantinga, right?

Like, this is a very common

old argument.

I remember C.S. Lewis

making this argument and it

comes up a lot.

I love you, Tom.

This is, okay.

Watch this, okay?

Check this out.

You're predictive.

Okay.

So, this is the basis of the

argument, right?

So, now, based on this

argument, you can argue

either naturalism is true and

evolution is false or

evolution is true and

naturalism is false.

Does that make sense?

You can't have them both

together based on this

argument.

Now, since theistic

evolution assumes the