Posted on 05/06/2016 11:22:38 AM PDT by fishtank
Monkey minds
How evolution undercuts reason and science
by Keaton Halley
Published: 5 May 2016 (GMT+10)
If our minds were not designed, why would we trust them?
Atheists routinely style themselves as champions of reason and science, and they view evolutionary theory as a triumph of both. Indeed, they believe that evolution helps them to explain features of the world that would otherwise be inexplicable. As Richard Dawkins put it, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”1 Ironically, however, evolution cannot possibly bear this burden, because if evolution were true it would undermine our confidence in human rationality. While Christianity has the resources to account for reason, the atheistic paradigm self-destructs. The contrast can be seen by comparing what each worldview says about the origin and composition of human beings.
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Because it’s true, you’re assigning evolutionists a position that is completely made up within your own head.
All of them.
Don’t need to be.
Here is a sample of what I mean. The evidence is there, left by God for anyone to see:
http://www.scilogs.com/maniraptora/psittacopasserae-retroposons/
I thought you were maintaining life could have been designed to evolve (in the orthodox sense)?
Was I mistaken?
I was. And the counter argument was that this is no different than something that wasn't designed at all doing the same thing. There was no explanation of why they are the same, just a bare assertion that they were.
Not at all.
My argument is that the designed item making use of environmental conditions to improve it's design without having that improvement already resident in the original design is to believe in magic.
Cite an evolutionist who believes in free will.
Cite one who doesn’t. You’re the one making the claim. If you actually knew anything about science in general and evolutionary science in particular you’d no that evolution has NO OFFICIAL OPINION one way or the other. Because they’re unrelated sciences. Free will is something psychiatrists and psychologists worry about. Might as ask what astronomers think about it. Meanwhile, away from their science lack of belief in free will is largely limited to a very small subsection of Christianity. Even psychiatrists who spend a lot of time dealing with the biochemical reactions that make us do things aren’t generally willing to go all the way to ruling out free will, because to do that rules out culpability, and that’s a line just generally aren’t willing to cross.
Fact is you’re making crap up. Lying really, since you keep making the same demonstrably false statement even after it’s been pointed out to you that it’s false. Way to use your free will.
“If you actually knew anything about science in general and evolutionary science in particular you’d no that evolution has NO OFFICIAL OPINION one way or the other. “
A ha.
Finally you get it.
See my post 7.
Free will, and with it reason, are meaningless in the evolutionary world view.
I merely submitted that there is nothing that disallows evolution by design. If it's necessary for information about possible configuration changes to be stored until needed, then that will be part of the design. That scenario is entirely consistent with the large segments of apparently unused (un-expressed) DNA we find in living organisms.
You're arguing against a premise no one submitted.
Yes, I’m familiar with morphological studies of DNA. There is a vast difference between methodologies like those and hard, verifiable science. The hard sciences are the ones where we are dealing with phenomenon happening in the present time, so that we can observe it, control the conditions to run experiments that isolate various factors, make predictions, and test them to get experimental verification. Even with these more reliable scientific disciplines, science never can tell us anything with absolute certainty, but at least we can have confidence that our theories approximate the truth to some degree.
On the other hand, you have what I like to call speculative, or historical sciences, which deal with phenomena that happened in the past. This creates enormous, often insurmountable obstacles to making observations or verifying anything experimentally. So instead, scientists try to substitute speculation, computer models, or extrapolations based on data of unverifiable quality for the more reliable methods of science. It’s certainly possible to arrive at good conclusions using those methods, but there is simply no way to really verify most of the results.
Also, there are often underlying methodological problems with those types of research. For example, morphological studies can never be used as evidence to confirm evolution, because their methodology is dependent on assuming the truth of evolution as a given. They start by assuming all organisms have a common ancestor, then from that assumption, they deduce that all differences between the genomes of currently living organisms have accumulated from the original genome of the assumed common ancestor. The results of this method tell us nothing about the accuracy of the underlying assumptions, for if we held different assumptions such studies would produce wildly different results, and we would have no way to verify the truth of one set of results versus another, at least until someone invents a time machine.
Well, He didn’t design the Theory of Relativity.
He may have designed the underlying forces and phenomenon that Einstein observed that led him to posit the theory... however theories are all creations of men, and they are always imperfect like all other creations of men.
Now take away the non living matter and try to evolve.
God created some things in His own image. This is fundamental in Creationism.
Evolution assumes an ancient pagan concept of the Continuity of Being. It attacks God’s Creation, by implying all things may be accounted for, by having always been in some form od being and transmutation.
They a very distinct notions and one of them denies God’s Word.
“Oh, and to top it all off, if the mind were designed, why are there people with mental defects or disorders? “
You don’t believe that creation is cursed because of Adam’ sin?
I don't think that's quite what was meant.
You are, of course, free to believe differently.
Yes, I’m familiar with morphological studies of DNA.
...
The link I gave you concerned a study of retroposons, not a morphological study. Other than that why should I or anyone accept your opinion on what makes valid science?
It means what it says.
It doesn’t imply He made things as a continuum, but rather with explicit purpose.
I don't doubt that. I do doubt that we can say exactly how he did it.
Study and accept His Word. We’ve been made with a purpose.
Is this about reason or dogma? It can't be both.
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.