Remster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remster  Pseudonous
I've inadvertently misled you.
The pseudo-scientific theory I'm asking you to consider isn't the theory that evolution occurred and a supremely powerful being caused it to occur (which would, as you neatly explain, involve tacking a metaphysical being on to a natural process). Rather, the pseudo-scientific theory I'm asking you to consider is the theory that immediate creation occurred and the creator planted the fossil record (and any other putative evidence for evolution) to mislead the unwary into believing in evolution.
So the questions of my last post still stand.
Remster |
OK, I think I see the communication problem we are having. I don't believe scientific theories are anything more than descriptions of what we see.
In other words, it is not my belief that they say anything about an underlying metaphysical reality. The way I see your question, evolution just says how things happen and the metaphysical being says why things happen. So from my point of view, I don't really see a difference between the two pseudo-scientific theories; they are just alternative ways to state the same thing.
Perhaps I should clarify that this arises from the fact that the hypothetical pseudo-scientific theory makes the same predictions as the scientific theory. If they have all the same supporting evidence and make all the same predictions then on that basis alone they are merely alternative descriptions of the same thing. So you see, the pseudo-scientific theory really does contain the theory of evolution with a metaphysical being tacked on.
Another way to think about this - If a powerful being were to plant evidence for evolution to mislead us, that is to say evolution is just an illusion, then at what point does the illusion become so perfect that it can't really be called an illusion anymore. At what point does that illusion simply become an accurate description of your reality? To me, for something to be an illusion it has to be in someway misleading. If I can make predictions based on an explanation and in all cases arrive at the right conclusion then I can't call that explanation an illusion. So, as I see it, a powerful being that makes the word appear in every relevant way as if evolution occurred is the same as a powerful being that made evolution occur. Again, this is because evolution is merely a description; evolution only addresses things of appearance not the things in themselves.
Quote:
|
PS I don't want you to think I believe this nonsense – it's just an example I'm using to try and demonstrate an epistemological point.
|
No problem, I understand thought experiments.
Pseudonous