whilst it's true that evolution doesn't necessarily create true beliefs it can easily be understood to need to produce cognitive senses that are reliable in conjuntion with the external world and once that occurs we have a starting point to weed out false beliefs (using the scientific method for example).
A minor light in the gloom!
congruence? Is that necessary for evolution, then?
The probability of evolution ( random mutations, naturally selected for their survival value) having produced cognitive mechanisms at all is remote in the extreme. But relaible & congruent beliefs?
In what context?
You'll be familiar with the notion of primitive Paul who lived in the time of very few people.
Paul who decides not to run from the fire but nevertheless, because of a multitude of interacting variables, survives, whilst the rest of his tribe perish. Paul is now , according to evolutionary theory, more fit to survive.
I actually don't have a problem with adaptive systems evolving over time. But the probability of a single molecule developing from scratch via random mutation and selection is millions of billions to one.
Evolutionary theory argues that the process is not entirely random. I accept that there are external conditions which favour certain outcomes. That reduces the odds to mere billions.
The second reposte to probability is that the sheer number of trials which occur in nature mean that eventually the right combination will occur.
If you have £100 and put £1 on 100 100/1 outsiders, it is almost certain that you will lose your money.
The chances of you not only making a profit, but stumbling upon a viable population of others who have similar extraordinary luck is very, very, very, very, low. Infact it's pretty much none.
But, if there was a plan, a design, that directed selection according to non random processes, a sign post if you like; the chances of punters loaded with dosh from unlikely bets stumbling across one another would be more credible.
This is why I say that an intelligent design ( God if you like) is more probable than a random ( albeit environmentally influenced) evolutionary theory to explain how life developed.
Evolution is a theory not a fact. If it claims to be a science, then by definition it has to potentially disprovable. It is a pity that so many of those who subscribe seem to forget that fact.
Please don't come back to me with spurious arguments about divine beings. Stick to the terms of reference. We are debating evolution here, not religion.
