Evolution and Reason

Sorry, I know I promised something ordinary. Humor me.

For those who want to be too committed to evolutionary explanation: The Darwinian materialist has to explain his own explanation in Darwinian terms. He has to give a Darwinian account of why the neural activity of Homo sapiens necessarily produces a true thought (i.e., Darwinism). If he cannot give a reason why evolution should produce such true thoughts (or give an evolutionary account of truth), then it seems that he has no way to claim that he is not engaging in a Darwinian delusion.

The implication is that physicists are dependent on biologists to give an account of why physics should be true at all (in the sense that it is more than a very effective delusion). And that is an ironic reversal.

Some thought must be put into just how such a committed Darwinian materialist may get out of this predicament without resorting to circularity (e.g., "Darwinism is true because it is the result of Darwinian selection").

Does this mean that I don't "believe in" evolution. Well, no. It means that I don't believe in scientific materialism. That's no news to anyone who has read much of this blog. I think Dawkins is deluded, but not because he's a scientist.

It's because he's an ass.

And if you've read Judges, you'll know that it's the jawbone of the ass that will slay the Philistines.