Evolution: The enemy of reason. If our minds were not designed, why would we trust them?

Creation Ministries International ^ | 5-5-16 | Keaton Halley

[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.

[MaxFlint]

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.

If every genome ever sequenced didn't accord with the common ancestry hypothesis the theory of evolution would be in serious trouble. But every genome does fit the hypothesis, so evolution is still going strong.

You can argue that all existing species were created in a few days a few thousand years ago with genomes that just happen to match what we'd expect to find if they evolved over millions of years but... that's a stretch.

[Just mythoughts]

Do you not yourself profess them as faith?

This earth is filled with the evidence that there was an age before this 'flesh' age. That is not faith. AND if the dinosaurs existed when Noah loaded that boat we would still have dinosaurs walking, swimming, or flying around. But the remains of the dinosaurs and plants have been preserved and are discovered nearly every day. So no I would not call those facts a faith.

[tacticalogic]

This earth is filled with the evidence that there was an age before this 'flesh' age. That is not faith. AND if the dinosaurs existed when Noah loaded that boat we would still have dinosaurs walking, swimming, or flying around. But the remains of the dinosaurs and plants have been preserved and are discovered nearly every day. So no I would not call those facts a faith.

You somehow made the determination that those dinosaur and plant remains are evidence of "an age before this 'flesh' age", but are not evidence of evolution. On what basis did you reach that conclusion?

[Just mythoughts]

You somehow made the determination that those dinosaur and plant remains are evidence of "an age before this 'flesh' age", but are not evidence of evolution. On what basis did you reach that conclusion?

Pure common sense. The age of the dinosaurs and plants found in places around this earth were destroyed in quick time. It is only a theory, that a single cell got all hot and bothered and self reproduced. There simply is not one shred of evidence that 'life' of all species got varying levels of intelligence through the eons of time.

I do get a smile over the new fad that is replacing TOE, aliens did it.

[tacticalogic]

Pure common sense. The age of the dinosaurs and plants found in places around this earth were destroyed in quick time.

Anybody can trot out a bare assertion and label it "common sense". If that's all you've got, then you've basically got nothing.

[Just mythoughts]

Anybody can trot out a bare assertion and label it "common sense". If that's all you've got, then you've basically got nothing.

What part of 'evolution' gives you authority? Evolution is a dead end theory caught in the middle of nowhere.

[tacticalogic]

What part of 'evolution' gives you authority? Evolution is a dead end theory caught in the middle of nowhere.

I never claimed any authority. All I did was posit the possibility of evolution by design.

[Just mythoughts]

I never claimed any authority. All I did was posit the possibility of evolution by design.

Why? WHO is your designer? Evolution by design is not 'pro-life'. Evolution by design ignores the 'soul/spirit intellect'. Evolution by design is an international salute to the Creator. But hey, each soul/spirit intellect that chooses to take this flesh journey does have the God given right to posit their possibilities.

I am quite sure you will posit some very intellectual words, but I am going to go out put straw around my potatoes. later

[tacticalogic]

But hey, each soul/spirit intellect that chooses to take this flesh journey does have the God given right to posit their possibilities.

If you knew that, why did you ask by what authority I do it?

[discostu]

Meaningless != don’t believe it exists. And free will is meaningless in the evolutionary world view, but reason is (as we’ve already shown) VERY meaningful, because it is an evolved trait.

[angryoldfatman]

The one that tries to equate a designed entity (life) changing itself because it was designed to do that with an undersigned entity (static) changing itself into a designed entity (a broadcast signal) for no reason at all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well color me confused. I have no idea what argument you’re talking about.

I was ridiculing someone else’s argument as being based on circular logic, he called my rebuttal a non-sequitur, I demonstrated what a non-sequitur was in order to show him he was wrong.

I then gave him more specific information on what logical fallacy he committed in his original argument.

I can’t decipher what you’re talking about versus what I posted earlier.

[tacticalogic]

I was ridiculing someone else’s argument as being based on circular logic, he called my rebuttal a non-sequitur, I demonstrated what a non-sequitur was in order to show him he was wrong.

And failed miserably. "Non sequitur" means "it does not follow". Trying to equate fundamentally dissimilar things will not follow. Something that was explicitly defined as having been designed will be fundamentally different from something that was not. An attempt was made to equate something that was designed to something that wasn't, and predictably the claimed conclusion did not follow - hence "non-sequitur".

[angryoldfatman]

Still not understanding who you’re arguing against.

My opponent claimed my calling out his argument as circular logic was itself a non-sequitur. It wasn’t. I exaggerated a non-sequitur to illustrate what one was, then told him the logical fallacy he was using originally (the circular argument) was “begging the question”.

Perhaps you can show me a proper non-sequitur to show me what I’m doing wrong.

[tacticalogic]

Still not understanding who you’re arguing against.

At this point I think that's probably going to be a permanent condition, and pursuing it any further isn't going to be productive.

[ifinnegan]

There is no reason without free will.

Reason is a function of free will.

[discostu]

Wrong. Reason is the processing of data. Free will is choosing what you do. They’re largely unrelated.

[samtheman]

Reason and rationality are survival characteristics. If we couldn’t rely on them, we’d be unable to do things like store food for the winter, navigate successfully, or take advantage of physics or natural phenomena. This doesn’t even apply solely to humans. All animals, consciously or not, rely on at least rationality for survival, and several of the more “intelligent” animals appear to be capable of applying at least basic reasoning as well.

---

Well said. And I think it goes deeper than that. Survival on the plains of East Africa and beyond was definitely enhanced by the development of a brain that could quickly intuit and instinctively have a feel for the basics of Newtonian physics.

I throw the spear higher to make it go farther. I lead a running animal to better intersect the trajectories of spear and beast.

Not consciously thought out but innately understood.

Much later, when it was consciously thought out by the genius of Newton (himself standing on the shoulders of others), it was almost immediately recognized for the genius it was. Newtonian physics makes perfect sense to those whose ancestors used it for daily survival.

But nobody’s ancestors used quantum mechanics for daily survival. The uncertainty of position and momentum of the individual photons bringing you the image of a charging lion are unimportant details in the more classical physics problem of how best to save your butt from being eaten.

Thus it has come to pass that while the genius of Newton is easily understood by anyone willing to do a little homework, the genius of Heisenberg is not really understood by anyone. Richard Fynman said that anyone who claims to understand quantum mechanics is a liar. And yet it is by far the most successful scientific theory ever.

So how to explain this discrepancy?

I believe it’s because brain evolution enhanced an understanding of classical physics without needing an understanding of quantum weirdness.

If understanding was imparted to us by a designer, why not equally include classical and quantum in the mix?

[samtheman]

This [fine-tuned universe] is a much stronger argument for a Creator than anything creationist critics of evolution have come up with.

---

Absolutely correct. There are 20 numbers, any one of which the slightest change would make star-formation impossible. The most amazing one to me is the value of dark energy, which is exact to 120 decimal places. Make it stronger or weaker by 3 decimal places: no stars, no galaxies, no us.

But such a precision design — which absolutely points to a designer — absolutely does not preclude the possibility of Set It And Forget it. God set the parameters, spun up the Big Bang, then did nothing else.

And beyond that possibility, there is also many other weirder, internally-logically-consistent, scenarios.

[Big Red Badger]

Makes my head hurt,

[angryoldfatman]

So you’re agreeing with my opponent that my rebuttal was a non-sequitur. Here was my response to his claim. Please notice I am not making a claim about the subject matter; I am making a claim about his argument per se.

My opponent’s original argument:

---

“Reason provides greater survival advantage than stimulus response, as proven by human adaptability.”

---

My response:

---

Circular argument.

“Humans adapted to their environment using reason, adaptation is why they survived, humans have the capability of reason, therefore they adapted to their environment using reason, adaptation is why they survived, humans have the capability of reason, therefore they adapted to their environment using reason, adaptation is why they survived, humans have the capability of reason, therefore...”

---

I called it a circular argument, then illustrated the fallacy of his argument by showing its assertion was used as its proof, using a repeating loop to show how it was circular. The logical fallacy he originally used was “begging the question”.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

I’m sorry you can’t understand this well enough to simply rebut me, instead of getting angry and giving up.

Are you a hardcore evolutionist, a creationist (old or new earth) or something in between? My opponent was arguing for evolution.