“What I said was: Reason, as used in the original article, is a perfectly valid survival characteristic, in that humans who are unable to reason would not be likely to procreate.”
Your response is quite long.
Let’s just look at the above.
What evidence do you have for this?
And, again, if you are citing “reason” as a tangible definable objective trait inheritable and assignable within phenotype, and presumably genotype, you need to define it to even begin to approach evaluating your hypothesis that “humans who are unable to reason would not be likely to procreate”.
I had a whole long response written, but I decided in the end that it wasn’t worth typing it all out. The short version is:
Don’t change the subject.
You don’t need a definition of “reason”, or any other ability, to understand how evolution could result in that ability being just as reliable as one imposed fully-formed by design.
Reason, as used in the original article, is a perfectly valid survival characteristic, in that humans who are unable to reason would not be likely to procreate. There are plenty of human beings who, absent any good reason to do so, get drunk, stay out too late, bed the first equally un-reasoned human being of the opposite sex, only to learn in short order that they will soon be parents.
This is where the premise above, as stated, fails.
Reason alone is not necessarily "good." Reason must be informed against a standard with which to measure good and evil, right and wrong, favorable and unfavorable.
The question always comes down to who sets the standard based upon what metric that defines "good."
The Christian premise is that it is Jesus Christ, the Creator of the Universe (John 1:1-5), who sets both the standard and the metric for that which defines "good."
Absent Jesus Christ, the materialist has no credible, objective standard which defines "good." He only has himself.
It comes as no surprise then that the materialist is the definition of the self-serving, godless man .
FReegards!
