Naturalistic evolutionism cannot be rationally affirmed

I. Preface: I am grateful for Pro for instigating this debate. In all honesty I had absolutely no idea what I was getting myself into when I accepted this debate, as I thought it would be a debate on evolutionary theory or naturalism... I never realised this was an actual argument which is quite widely discussed in philosophical circles. The so-named 'Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism', and all of it's incarnations. II. Burden of Proof The burden of proof is squarely on Pro for the course of this debate, as such much of my effort is going to concentrate on refuting my opponent's arguments. However I do intend to throw a few words in the positive direction of evolutionary naturalism. III. Rebuttals to the "Evolutionary argument against naturalism" First, I need to summarise what my opponent is attempting to argue here and to see how it logically demonstrates that naturalistic evolutionism is self-refuting. So we have the conclusion, "belief in naturalistic evolution is self-refuting". Moreover we have the evidential inputs which are as listed: 1. Beliefs are selected for if they are exhibited in instinctual behaviors 2. Natural selection (evolution) only selects for advantageous instinctual behaviors, and not necessarily for true behaviours From this we can conclude that natural selection only selects advantageous instinctual beliefs, which I find quite agreeable. Notice I have inserted the word 'instinctual' here, which will become very important shortly: C1. Natural Selection only selects for advantageous beliefs, and not necessarily true beliefs So essentially Pro is demonstrating that our instinctual beliefs are divorced from the truth of those beliefs, now whether or not this is synonymous with the further conclusion that "Our instinctual beliefs are likely wrong assuming naturalistic evolution is false" is not something I will address yet, but let us assume this is true for the sake of argument. We need to tie this second conclusion with the conclusion that Pro is arguing for, which is "belief in naturalistic evolution is true is self-refuting". [1,2] So we have: P1) Our instinctual beliefs are likely wrong assuming naturalistic evolution is true P2) ??? Conclusion: Belief that naturalistic evolution is true is likely false (self-refuting) Here we have a hidden assumption that Pro needs to make, and clearly hasn't, since it's an easily refutable one: P1) Our instinctual beliefs are likely false assuming naturalistic evolution is true P2) Instinctual beliefs are the only source of belief assuming naturalistic evolution is true Conclusion: Belief that naturalistic evolution is true is likely false (self-refuting) This premise of course is one that biologists and neurologists will scream objection at.[2] While it is plausible that our instinctual 'beliefs' may not correlate to truth, it does not logically follow that any belief we would have is indeed an instinctual one. First and fore more, we have complex brains, which are capable of developing beliefs which are not part of the natural selection process. Indeed, if increasingly sophisticated brains means we are more likely to hold true non-instinctual) beliefs than false beliefs, then it reasonably follows that increase sophistication is a trait that will be positively selected for given all other factors are equal. It of course is more complicated than this when you consider trade-offs, but right here we can see that Pro's argument falls on a fallacy of equivocation, equivocating instinctual beliefs, selected for by natural selection, to any and all beliefs of which I have listed one of huge major ones. To cement this issue let's take the following thought experiment Take the following equation: 2x2 = 4 What does the 'x' in this equation mean? To someone who is not already trained? Well it could mean anything, but two examples of what it could mean is that the x is an addition function, or a multiplication function. Either 'belief' inwould net the same response, or result. And both given all other things are equal would be equally selected for via. natural selection. The person however, holding the wrong belief, who attempts to apply this to other situations such as: 3x5 will run into problems. The person holding the belief that x is an addition function and hence 3x5=8 will be holding a false belief, and will be selected out of the population by natural selection. The person holding the belief that x is a multiplication function will pass the selection process. By this demonstration, we can see that because individual beliefs do not exist in a vacuum, they will tend to correlate with truth as we increase the number of situations these and conflicting beliefs are exposed to. Our sophisticated brains do a similar thing, and the above process will sound very familiar to my fellow scientists, as it closely mirrors the scientific method! So far I have demonstrated that Pro's argument is either logically invalid or unsound, and have given good reasons to believe that naturalistic evolutionism is rationally affirmable. IV. Attack on 'Supernaturalism': I have accepted that we evidently do hold some false beliefs, and I am certain most people will also accept this, people do hold false beliefs. This is true regardless of whether or not naturalism or supernaturalist is true. Hence, evidently, even assuming supernaturalist to be true, our beliefs do not directly correlate with truth either, and therefore belief in supernaturalist is also self-defeating according to the logic presented by Pro so far. This is quite simply a 'tu torque' logical fallacy. V. Telos Argument: I have reposted Pro's teleology here: P1) If there are unintelligent beings that possess telos, then they must be guided by intelligence P2) There exists unintelligent beings that possess telos C) Therefore there exists a guiding intelligence This argument is logically valid, so I will not be attacking the structure of the argument, but I will be disputing the premises. Where I dispute the premises is somewhat fuzzy, as it depends on the definition of 'telos' that we accept. Telos as far as I can see if "an ultimate objective, or aim", or 'end' as Pro asserts. However this definition essentially presupposes the the objective/aim/end is a specified one, and therefore specified by a guiding intelligence. So, what I was most interested in is exactly how Pro justified that these 'ends' are 1. Recognised and 2. Only guided by intelligence (assuming that telos doesn't presuppose a guiding intelligence). Pro's justification for the former is that objects with telos needs both knowledge and intention to achieve it's end. But by what reasoning should we accept this to be a fact? Evolution is well-known for reusing existing parts for different 'ends' or purposes. One could take a whale's fin 'arms', and see that these are reused 'arms' of it's proposed mammalian ancestor.[3] To extend this to an analogy, I could walk into a garden, which I have for my entire like been gardening and shovelling with only my bare hands. One day I suddenly come across a piece of flat wood, it is nothing special, but I find that by using this piece of wood I am capable of accomplishing my gardening task with greater ease. My descendants would use similar pieces of wood, each generation using increasingly better adapted pieces of wood which resembles spaces and forks, as the shape has morphed it's shape over time (via natural selection). If one looks at the end result, they will see that my descendants are using highly sophisticated pieces of machinery that seem to be fulfilling an end/purpose, and would only be accessible if such a thing was 'planned', or knowledge of the shape of this tool was known before the first piece of wood was found. However I have just shown here that this is simply not the case, especially when we have a process such as evolution via. natural selection directing the process. With 'telos' being the end or goal by which a being operates, and an 'unintelligent being' defined as an entity which lacks knowledge and consciousness. This argument runs into both Premise 1 and Premise 2 of my opponent's argument. In that if an object allegedly possesses telos, then it doesn't necessarily need to be accomplished by guiding intelligence. And if we accept that telos contains the presupposition that it is guided by intelligence, then premise 2 is unsound, as there Pro has not provided an objective way to tell between two objects, one of which appears to have telos, and one which does not. Please note the subjective tone in which Pro justifies that we have inanimate objects that display telos. "It is fairly obvious that some things in this world display telos." I ask Pro to provide an objective standard by which we can determine anything at all has telos, if it contains this intelligence presupposition. Since we can apply this to virtually anything in the universe. The supernova that caused the Crab Nebula fulfilled it's 'purpose/end' by providing a spectacular light show/entertainment for humans 1,000 years ago. Jupiter is fulfilling it's 'end' by mopping up many of the deadly asteroids that would otherwise impact earth. The local river is fulfilling it's end by effectively transporting water from higher grounds into the ocean. Were all these guided by intelligence? It seems rather absurd. Until we can objectively identify which has/has not telos, then this argument is one big appeal to intuition/perception. VI. Conclusion: The resolution is negated, and I have given a number of reasons for thinking the resolution is in fact, false. VII. References: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com... http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk... http://evolution.berkeley.edu...