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 ...
“Humans adapted to their environment using reason, adaptation is why they survived, humans have the capability of reason”
This is a non-sequitur, and a misstatement. Reason isn’t an all-or-none proposition. There is a wide spectrum of reasoning ability.
It’s not circular if you don’t try to force it to fit your conclusion:
At some point in the development of life on earth, due to a combination of factors, some creatures had a greater ability to reason reliably (for a very primitive definition of reason). They were more successful/prolific as a result of this ability (better able to evade predators, better able to find food), and the increased ability to “reason” became more common over time.
Fast forward to early hominids, where the ones who can figure out cause-and-effect and so on are more likely to live long enough to produce offspring (or produce more offspring). The ability to reason has by now grown to the point where truly-complex thought is now possible. More, or higher-quality, food means more fuel for the growth and functioning of the brain. Plus, those who have the genetic factors that would permit a larger brain *if enough food were available*, and it becomes a synergistic loop. Bigger brains are better able to reason out how to obtain food, and more food means the brain works even better. Those individuals who were able to realize their genetic potential for large brains capable of complex thought then pass that genetic potential to their offspring.
This (eventually) brings us down to today. Were it not for the success our more primitive ancestors had in being able to reliably reason and thus improve their own lot (and energy intake), we would not be the reasoning beings we are today. All the way down the years, if reasoning could not be trusted, and thus not able to contribute to a creature’s ability to thrive and out-compete its rivals, it would not have persisted.
The above is meant to demonstrate that it is entirely possible for evolution to result in a reliable ability to reason. In other words, we can trust the reasoning ability our brains, even if that ability arose as a product of evolution, because unreliable reason demonstrably would not have benefited life at any point, while reliable reasoning would.
The Theory of evolution is not a sufficient explanation for the origin of life, or of the human species.
“The understanding of large numbers is what leads many scientists and mathematician to believe in God.”
I’ve read where mathmaticians are one of the least likely groups to believe in Evolution. IIRC, biologists are also fairly high up there - mainly due to the mathamatical odds.
And I’m not sure if the odds you posted are still good, seeing as they have recently discovered that the DNA code doesn’t just direct proteins, but also controls genes. So the DNA strand now contains twice as much information than we thought a couple of years ago.
http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/
Call me when we have organisms changing species
The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life
<><><><>
I sure cam’t say for sure one way or the other, but my degree in philosophy from better than 35 years ago cautions me about arguments using the word ‘seem’.
The short answer is that the insect survival strategy took a different path. The ability to reason isn’t the only survival characteristic, just *a* survival characteristic. Evolution is really the sum of a wide array of factors interacting with each other over time, and a tiny change in any one of those factors can produce profoundly different results over a long stretch of time. Some animals survived because they produced a huge number of offspring so at least some would survive, while others survived because they invested more energy in a small number of offspring.
Indeed. But you're not talking about the parts that were designed any more. You're talking about something that was not designed (the static) spontaneously turning itself into something that was designed (the broadcast signal). That's not part of the premise.
Once you have life evolution takes place. We know that from the fossil record and from observing the small evolutionary changes that take place constantly, especially in simple organisms.
The structural features of the human species are very similar to primates. DNA testing confirms this relationship. Most of our DNA is very similar to Chimpanzee DNA. The most economical explanation is that the human species evolved from extinct hominids that diverged from the other primates a few million years ago.
The origin of consciousness, because it isn't understood, is the real mystery here. No other animal has anything like it.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Determinations of plausibility require more that simple assertion.
It's easy to say "there is no evidence", but reason dictates that proving a negative is going to be problematic. Good luck with that.
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.
But you claim my facts are a faith. Upon whose authority, certainly not the long dead in the flesh Darwin, do you get this power? Exactly who are you reasoning, evolution is merely a theory, divined up to ignore what the Creator did and why.
“With the latest genetic analysis, evolution is obviously God’s method of creation.”
Pure hyperbole. Speculation based on this kind of historical data that we can only observe in retrospect, and cannot replicate experimentally, is not science, therefore no scientific conclusions can be drawn from such methodology.
This is a non-sequitur
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope. It relates directly to your argument. A non-sequitur would be something like “Reason is a fish. We evolved from fish, so reason evolved.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
To more sharply define your circular argument, it is “begging the question”, where you include the very thing you’re trying to prove (that we survived because reason evolved) in the proof itself (because of reason evolving, we survived).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
Not buying it. You had to go "off the reservation" (outside of the original premise) to construct that argument, and that's bullshit.
The short answer is that the insect survival strategy took a different path.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So reason is not an end-all be-all. Like I said, it doesn’t seem to be needed at all for a large majority of the animal biomass (of which 6 or 7 billion humans are practically a drop in the bucket) to survive, thrive, and evolve.
Which argument are you talking about, agitated person?
I understand the context of your statement. And you are correct that most proponents of Darwinism separate “abiogenesis” from Darwinian evolution.
But actual informed evolutionists do understand that it is a continuum without distinction as it is all simply physics-chemical processes.
Otherwise abiogenesis accepts the élan vital concept.
You aren’t making sense.
I asked what evidence you have for a specific hypothesis you put forth.
1) something from nothing
2) symmetry, order, and beauty from disorder
3) consciousness, free will, reason, wisdom from matter
4) life from inanimate chemicals
5) anthropic coincidences from accidents
6) man from pond scum
7) human knowledge and values from a universe without absolutes
these beliefs are too much of a leap of faith for me
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.