To me the biggest problem with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is that they do not seem to provide one clear answer as to why God created the universe in the first place.
Given this, I have no way of changing probabilities when the world seems cruel or contradicting, since they do not claim the world as perfect. This of course doesn’t depend on what my prior is.
For evolution, I find a weakness (I am not an expert on the subject) that related to being able to explain all outcomes equally. If an animal feature seems in perfection with survival, this is due to evolution, if a feature isn’t, this is a proof of no God, hence evolution. Shouldn’t an imperfect human featuring a blind spot eventually get extinct? Not necessarily. What if it was extinct? Then it’s evolution.
I find explaining by evolution is not disprovable, at least of the (seemingly infinite) millions and millions of years.
Agreed that if a theory T can explain both actual and counterfactual events equally well, then that’s a huge weakness in T. (In fact, it makes T pretty much useless.) This is both true and important.
That said, your understanding of what kinds of explanations “evolution” provides is deeply confused.
To me the biggest problem with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is that they do not seem to provide one clear answer as to why God created the universe in the first place. Given this, I have no way of changing probabilities when the world seems cruel or contradicting, since they do not claim the world as perfect. This of course doesn’t depend on what my prior is.
For evolution, I find a weakness (I am not an expert on the subject) that related to being able to explain all outcomes equally. If an animal feature seems in perfection with survival, this is due to evolution, if a feature isn’t, this is a proof of no God, hence evolution. Shouldn’t an imperfect human featuring a blind spot eventually get extinct? Not necessarily. What if it was extinct? Then it’s evolution.
I find explaining by evolution is not disprovable, at least of the (seemingly infinite) millions and millions of years.
Agreed that if a theory T can explain both actual and counterfactual events equally well, then that’s a huge weakness in T. (In fact, it makes T pretty much useless.) This is both true and important.
That said, your understanding of what kinds of explanations “evolution” provides is deeply confused.
You’re not merely not an expert … you lack a fundamental understanding.