Posted on 10/30/2009 11:01:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Why is thought, being a secretion of the brain, more wonderful than gravity, a property of matter? It is our arrogance, it is our admiration of ourselves…
— Charles Darwin, age 29, in his notebook
This is an incredible comment. It is difficult to understand how anyone with a brain could not observe that thought produces such things as symphonies, literature and mathematics, while gravity just makes things fall down and holds planets in their orbits.
Furthermore, thought does not secrete like insulin from a pancreas, it is willed (at least that’s what I do, and I assume others do as well).
Darwin was far more simpleminded, naive, and superficial in his thinking than I realized. I already knew that he was simpleminded, naive, and superficial in his thinking when he ignored the obvious evidence of design in nature, in favor of his “random variation and natural selection can turn microscopic bugs into Mozart, given enough time” thesis.
How this patently absurd idea could have completely taken over the intellectual elite is still a mystery to me, when all the evidence of modern science contradicts it. The only conclusion I can reach is that they are desperately trying to deny the obvious, because they hate the light.
If you’re not laughing, you’re crying...PING!!!
No, the vast majority just shake their heads and deeply wish you a swift recovery.
Yeah, no big deal there...
There’s no reason to make this personal. 3G’s just carrying the torch.
I notice the trend in creationism is to at least become familiar with the the science. You don’t see a lot of the old, “I carbon tested a rock and it was only 50,000 years old” nonsense any more.
That’s a very recent and positive trend.
(Now if they can just get the science right.)
Gil needs to go learn some sciency stuff. Without human thought, there would be no mathematics and symphonies and literature. Without gravity, there would be no Earth, no life, no sun, no stars, no universe. No tides, no atmospheres......but hey, let's limit gravity to "making things fall down" so we can bash someone.
You don’t see a lot of the old, “I carbon tested a rock and it was only 50,000 years old” nonsense any more.
<><><><><><>
Nope. Now we have arguments from the creationists that our 12 billion year old universe and the ~6000 year old earth owe their existence to the exact same creation event.
GGG doesn’t post much from the ID side of the world, but since this merely opines about the naivete of Darwin, it has passed the post it test.
GGG - All thought is not willed. Since the foundation of the argument laid out here is fatally flawed, it renders his conclusions suspect at best.
Although characterized and vilified as an atheist or worse from the devil, Darwin was actually a religious man. His wonderment was answered in other works by his conclusion that gravity was given to all things and creatures, but thought and the ability to reason, was a gift God gave only to man.
Your brain is obviously secreting.
‘zactly.
Ooooo!
I like it.
That’s the part that’s not going to happen. I take great umbrage at the cherry-picking-science-as-foregone-conclusion to prop up “creationary” beliefs.
It's the same time counted differently.
Like here.
I suspect quantum mechanics can be used to formulate a solution. ;)
(I hope I'm not gonna be sorry I suggested that.)
But it exposes creationist audiences to chunks of science.
This is something they’ve never tried before and I think will have an impact over time.
I suspect this is part of God’s plan for these folks.
My what an optimistic soul... Bless you.
Could you get a little more specific (using links and examples) about what you mean about Darwin being a religious man?
What is your point here, that Darwin's notion that the thoughts we think are of no more significance than any other physical law or process simply because unwilled thoughts might co-exist with willed thoughts?
So you don’t agree with the author that thought is willed? You recognize that his premise is flawed?
What becomes, in your line of thinking, of conclusions drawn from faulty premises?
What becomes, in your line of thinking, of conclusions drawn from faulty premises?
If all thought is not willed, then can we assume that your support of evolution is not willed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.