Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger

[Habitual_Ritual]

You are selectively reading and quoting my responses.

Not at all. I am proving to you that I understand what it means to be equivocal. Now I need you to also prove that you understand the word by showing us, explicitly, where Father has equivocated . That's all. We are simply trying to establish that most fundamental fact needed to proceed.

Now, I understand that you are not satisfied with Father's definition, but that does not equal equivocation.

[TomD]

You are selectively reading and quoting my responses.

Not at all. I am proving to you that I understand what it means to be equivocal. Now I need you to also prove that you understand the word by showing us, explicitly, where Father has equivocated . That's all. We are simply trying to establish that most fundamental fact needed to proceed.

Again, why are you ignoring my comment? I explained exactly how and where I think the equivocation happens. And you are just ignoring this. Either deny that I am accurately representing Father's argument or show how my construction of the argument is not an equivocation.

[Habitual_Ritual]

I explained exactly how and where I think the equivocation happens.

But you didn't

[TomD]

I explained exactly how and where I think the equivocation happens.

But you didn't

You are simply ignoring virtually everything I am saying in these comments. You can't just say "you didn't" when you won't even bother to address the majority of what I am actually saying. So let me make this very clear once again:

At roughly 37:00 in the video, Father Ripperger gives a brief critique of evolution. It was this critique which prompted me to make my original comment because that critique is common among opponents of evolution.

On page 2 of this thread, comment #16 I give a construction on what I think is Father's argument here. Although I touch on it in each of my responses, I explain directly and explicitly why the argument is an equivocation in #21 on the same page. In further responses on this thread, I elaborate on and reaffirm precisely the claim I am making yet no one addresses the equivocation I am trying to point out.

Now, given this, there are only two options you can take (logically speaking). Either, (i) accept that my construction of Father's argument in 16 and 21 is an accurate representation of what he is in fact saying, or (ii) deny that I am accurately representing his critique. I make this exact point in my most recent comment and in reply #57 on the previous page. You are still ignoring this point.

If you take option (i), then fine. This entire morning's back and forth was irrelevant since we both agree that the construction of Father's argument in #16 and 21 is accurate. In that case, I stand by what I have been saying. That argument rests on an equivocation. If you disagree, then let's argue about it. Show me why my reasoning in #21 is faulty.

On the other hand, if you take option (ii), fine. Show me how my construction in #16 and 21 is an inaccurate representation of Father's argument. Then, if the accurate construction is agreed on, we can see if an equivocation remains.

[Habitual_Ritual]

I stated that the argument I am trying to represent is the one Fr. gives at around 37:00 and following.

Father does not give a definition of species at 37 minutes or following. He is discussing the principal of continuity as it applies in nature, 'like begets like', are the words he uses. This is not a principle of categorization, which is the function of the word 'species'. This is a statement of objective reality based in philosophical principles. It transcends scientific linguistic tools related to categorization. These words are being used by Father in the context of a discussion surrounding theistic evolutionary proponents . Where is the equivocation?

[TomD]

I stated that the argument I am trying to represent is the one Fr. gives at around 37:00 and following.

Father does not give a definition of species at 37 minutes or following. He is discussing the principal of continuity as it applies in nature, 'like begets like', are the words he uses. This is not a principle of categorization, which is the function of the word 'species'. This is a statement of objective reality based in philosophical principles. It transcends scientific linguistic tools related to categorization. These words are being used by Father in the context of a discussion surrounding theistic evolutionary proponents . Where is the equivocation?

1. I never said he gave a definition of species. I said his premises relied on a certain understanding of species that is different from the way that modern biology understands species. And this is why the concept of "species" employed in premise (1) and (4) of my rendition is different from that in (2), meaning, if my reconstruction of his argument is accurate, there is an equivocation

2. "like begets like" is the phrase he uses when he is discussing a criticism of evolution. I take it that his discussion surrounding this phrase in the video forms the basis of what I am listing as premise (1) and (4).

3. You ask "where is the equivocation?" So I will answer once again: I think that the construction I give in comments 16 and 21 is an accurate representation of what Father is trying to say at this point in the video (of course, he does not give a list of numbered premises, but I did to make the conversation about the equivocation easier). This reconstruction includes an equivocation, the equivocation which I explicitly explain in comment 21 on this thread (page 2). I have elaborated on this equivocation throughout in these comments but the body of my argument for where he is equivocating comes in reply #21. That is my answer to your question.

Now, you can either (i) deny that this representation includes an equivocation or (ii) deny that my construction in #16 and 21 corresponds to the actual criticism Father is making in the video. If (i), please engage in the actual argument I present in reply 21. If (ii) show me how my representation of Father's criticism is inaccurate. Where do I go wrong? What then is Father trying to argue?

[Habitual_Ritual]

1. I never said he gave a definition of species. I said his premises relied on a certain understanding of species that is different from the way that modern biology understands species.

But...biology has, itself, not settled on a firm and fixed definition of species. Science is entirety unsatisfied with the concept currently. Which of the several definitions, do you think Father is misrepresenting?

[Habitual_Ritual]

One of the problems with Fr. Ripperger's critique and many common critiques is working with an outmoded understanding of species. Evolutionary theory does not claim that at any point an animal gave birth to an offspring of a different species. People think that this is what is required for the development of new species. It is not however. The problem arises from thinking of species in such rigidly essentialist terms. Once we reject this underlying assumption however, much of Father's philosophical arguments fall apart.

Another common way of speaking, that unfortunately and surprisingly Fr. Ripperger seems to fall into, is regarding the nature of God's act of creation. God is the creative cause of everything that exists, without exception (and this includes all events with the possible exception of human and angelic choices, a topic for another time). This means that God cannot, strictly speaking, intervene in the course of natural history since he is already fully present. It is like asking whether or not an author can intervene in her story. The upshot of this is that theists who hold that evolution took place need not, and in fact, ought not, be committed to the idea that God intervenes from time to time in order to bring about changes in species. So to criticize this view is to attack a straw-man.

Lets back things up.

A: Tell us what you believe IS required for the creation of a new species (we will ignore the current scientific unwillingness to commit to a fixed definition of the word for now)

B: What do you think it means for 'God to be fully present', and how does this prevent him intervening in the natural order of events?

[TomD]

1. I never said he gave a definition of species. I said his premises relied on a certain understanding of species that is different from the way that modern biology understands species.

But...biology has, itself, not settled on a firm and fixed definition of species. Science is entirety unsatisfied with the concept currently. Which of the several definitions, do you think Father is misrepresenting?

But it doesn't matter in this context if biology has a "firm and fixed definition" of species. What matters is that the various ways in which biology uses the term (not one definition but a variety of related concepts) do not encompass how Father Ripperger uses the term. I do not want to go back into a conversation about which understanding is superior or whether or not it is a problem for evolution that it doesn't rely on one particular definition of species. We covered that ground. I claim it is irrelevant. What matters is these two understandings are different and thus make Father's argument (the one I construct in comments 16 and 21) rest on an equivocation.

[TomD]

One of the problems with Fr. Ripperger's critique and many common critiques is working with an outmoded understanding of species. Evolutionary theory does not claim that at any point an animal gave birth to an offspring of a different species. People think that this is what is required for the development of new species. It is not however. The problem arises from thinking of species in such rigidly essentialist terms. Once we reject this underlying assumption however, much of Father's philosophical arguments fall apart.

Another common way of speaking, that unfortunately and surprisingly Fr. Ripperger seems to fall into, is regarding the nature of God's act of creation. God is the creative cause of everything that exists, without exception (and this includes all events with the possible exception of human and angelic choices, a topic for another time). This means that God cannot, strictly speaking, intervene in the course of natural history since he is already fully present. It is like asking whether or not an author can intervene in her story. The upshot of this is that theists who hold that evolution took place need not, and in fact, ought not, be committed to the idea that God intervenes from time to time in order to bring about changes in species. So to criticize this view is to attack a straw-man.

Lets back things up.

A: Tell us what you believe IS required for the creation of a new species (we will ignore the current scientific unwillingness to commit to a fixed definition of the word for now)

B: What do you think it means for 'God to be fully present', and how does this prevent him intervening in the natural order of events?

But you see, this again moves the target. I think Father equivocates. I explain why in comment 21. You seem to disagree, which is why I presented to you the dilemma in response 57, 63, and 65. In order to proceed, we have to establish where our disagreement actually lies, this is why I made those comments. To reiterate: either you think my construction of Father's argument in numbers 16 and 21 is accurate or you do not. If you think it is, then my argument in 21 for why he equivocates remains. Address that. If you think it is not accurate, then explain why it isn't an accurate construction and we can go from there. You are avoiding this point.

My answer to (A) is irrelevant. Whether it be correct or incorrect, has no bearing on whether or not Father Ripperger's criticism of evolution rests on an equivocation.

My answer to (B) is also irrelevant even more so. For my answer to (B) has nothing to do with what we have been discussing since page 1 of this thread, viz. what I take to be Father's criticism as I laid it out in comment 16. I think he equivocates. But I think he equivocates when discussing species, not when discussing God's causality. That criticism is completely distinct and one that we have not addressed this entire thread. I would be happy to have a conversation about that. But I want to just point out that it would be abandoning the current conversation about his equivocation and starting a new conversation entirely. Do you see that?

[Habitual_Ritual]

Your entire argument is based around conflicting notions of species. Let me quote you:

Evolutionary theory does not claim that "new species* do arise from preexisting life." Rather, proponents of evolutionary theory are working with a different understanding of species, call it species**. And while "new species** do arise from preexisting life" is true, it is an equivocation to say that species* = species**.

But now, suppose critics of evolution decide to use species** as their working definition. But if that is the case, then (1) is false. Since species** does not treat species like equivalence classes, it is entirely possible that the antecedent of (1) is true but its consequent is false.

Do you see the problem here?

Specially, this is the line that matters

proponents of evolutionary theory are working with a different understanding of species

Let's have it then. What is this 'different understanding' . It is after all, pivotal to your claims of equivocation and all that is subsequently implied.

The problem arises from thinking of species in such rigidly essentialist terms

Great, lets have the 'non-rigid' version, so we can be clear on what it is we are actually arguing.

[Habitual_Ritual]

For my answer to (B) has nothing to do with what we have been discussing since page 1 of this thread, viz. what I take to be Father's criticism as I laid it out in comment 16.

Your concussion in comment 16 is as follows:

This argument however is problematic since (1) is working with an understanding of species that is different from what modern biologists are working with.

OKey Doke. Let's unpack/define this different biological understanding. Only then we can begin to see your point. Simply saying that providing us with such a definition is irrelevant, and that we simply need to take your word for it, prima facie, is not good enough. You might be making it all up after all. You claim Father's understanding is 'outmoded'. We now need to be told precisely why. Feel free to get as technical as you need to.

[TomD]

Your entire argument is based around conflicting notions of species. Let me quote you:

Evolutionary theory does not claim that "new species* do arise from preexisting life." Rather, proponents of evolutionary theory are working with a different understanding of species, call it species**. And while "new species** do arise from preexisting life" is true, it is an equivocation to say that species* = species**.

But now, suppose critics of evolution decide to use species** as their working definition. But if that is the case, then (1) is false. Since species** does not treat species like equivalence classes, it is entirely possible that the antecedent of (1) is true but its consequent is false.

Do you see the problem here?

Specially, this is the line that matters

proponents of evolutionary theory are working with a different understanding of species

Let's have it then. What is this 'different understanding' . It is after all, pivotal to your claims of equivocation and all that is subsequently implied.

The problem arises from thinking of species in such rigidly essentialist terms

Great, lets have the 'non-rigid' version, so we can be clear on what it is we are actually arguing.

1. What actually matters is not the particular definition of species used by modern biologists. There is not one definition. Rather, there are a group of related concepts that are more or less useful for classifying the diversity of biological life. To insist on one particular definition is to beg the question against proponents of evolution.

2. The broad concept of species used by biologists is not what is at issue. On no definition or any concept employed in modern biology is (1), from my construction in no. 16 and 21, true. The reason is that, despite not having one particular definition of "species," modern biology does reject a concept of "species" which treats them like equivalence classes. However, in order for (1) to be true, a concept in which "species" are equivalence classes must be the case. Now you may say then "so much for how modern biology is using the term, Father Ripperger's use of "species" is good enough for me and it does render (1) true." Fine. But this is why there is danger for equivocation, because using Father's definition, (2) is not true.

3. If you insist on me giving a definition, I will give the same one I gave in response number 11, except I will just quote from Wikipedia to make it easy: "largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction."

Now, I introduce this definition with a few caveats. First of all, it isn't a perfect definition. But one misunderstanding is that biologists are looking for some kind of metaphysical truth by employing a particular definition of species. They evaluate the definition more on its usefulness for classification. So to try and say that it fails to capture some ontological reality is to criticize it on its failure to do something it isn't designed to do to begin with.

Second, the problems with this definition are limited to particularity circumstances. Thus as a working definition it functions fine in many cases, especially in the animal kingdom. This is why I said "among animals" in paragraph 2 of comment 11. Not that this is the only suitable one for animals or that it is unsuitable for non-animals. I only restricted the discussion in this way because the restriction thus avoids some of the weeds that complicate the usefulness of this definition. Moreover, some of the problems with this definition are not based in biology but in the usefulness of determining whether or not two organisms or two distinct fossils are part of the same species. But this issue is not with the definition per se in biology but its applicability to certain problems (that do not really concern us here).

Third, even if this definition is not perfectly useful in biology, it does capture in large part what biologists are getting at when they say "species." It thus functions reasonably well in many contexts. Moreover, even the other definitions used for "species" in contemporary biology overlap with this one. So for our purposes, I think it will do.

Now, on this definition of species just given, (2) is true. But (1) is not (using the numbers of the original argument in comment no. 16 and 21). Therefore, Father Ripperger's argument falls apart if we want to use this definition throughout. We could do the same exercise with a variety of definitions used by biologists but this would be unnecessary.

[TomD]

For my answer to (B) has nothing to do with what we have been discussing since page 1 of this thread, viz. what I take to be Father's criticism as I laid it out in comment 16.

Your concussion in comment 16 is as follows:

This argument however is problematic since (1) is working with an understanding of species that is different from what modern biologists are working with.

OKey Doke. Let's unpack/define this different biological understanding. Only then we can begin to see your point. Simply saying that providing us with such a definition is irrelevant, and that we simply need to take your word for it, prima facie, is not good enough. You might be making it all up after all. You claim Father's understanding is 'outmoded'. We now need to be told precisely why. Feel free to get as technical as you need to.

Yes, that is what I have been doing. Father Ripperger is working with an understanding where species are treated like equivalence classes. Modern biology rejects this kind of use for the term. But the response you are quoting here has to do with (B), namely, my very first comment where I think Father Ripperger makes a theological error that has nothing to do with "species" or even evolution per se. I stand by that comment, and I am even willing to have that discussion too. I just wanted to point out that it is a distinct line of criticism than the one we have been talking about on this thread so far.

[Sempronius]

From TomD's reply nr 16:

1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life

This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?