The Creation - Evolution Debate. (again)
I am going to wax philosophical for a few minutes so if that bores you just go to one of the blogs with pictures in it because we are going to re-visit the long simmering debate on Evolution - Creationism.
As you probably know by now I am a Darwinist and not a Creationist but that does not mean that I reject “Intelligent Design” out of hand. (I was asked, during a chat room discussion on evolution, whether I had read Michael Behe. I replied that I had, at which point the person let out a self-rightgeous “Ah HA!”)
What this person didn’t realize is that he asked the wrong question!
Yes, I have read Michael Behe, but that by no means indicates that I agree with him.
On the contrary, his crap about “Irreducible Complexity” is full of holes and contradictions. Besides that, who uses words like irreducible anyways?
No, my point there, and in this article, is that we are asking the wrong questions in the whole debate over creation and evolution. It is not an either/or answer.
First, we have to take a brief look at the whole concept of God and Creation.
Everything we do and wonder about is grounded in THIS Universe and we have to apply the “laws of nature” to understand them in a “this world” context.
Another way to define this is by a line of reasoning by Dr. Michael W. Tkacz concerning some points that were first voiced by Thomas Aquinas.
Now, that is pretty heavy and convoluted, but basically it says that God is not of this universe, but rather “apart” from it and we cannot use physical terms to describe God, or the process (act) of creation.
There is no way we can describe “God and Creation” in “earthly” terms since there is no frame of reference for us.
But, after the Force we describe as God created this universe, IT operates according to laws we can understand. (Science)
In other words, the Universe was created as a single thing quite apart, but caused by, the creator. Then, “after that,” the laws of this universe took over and guided the process of evolution.
With this in mind, and after all is said and done, this means that Creation and Evolution are not an “either / or” proposition. Rather, it turns out that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.
Yes bunky, "Intelligent Design" was used in the creation of the Universe, but since then...............God only knows!
Now, take two aspirins and go do something else!
Yer "The Olde Philosopher" scribe;
Allan W Janssen
Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) at; www.God-101.com
And the petition to have people mind their own business instead of yours at; http://www.petitiononline.com/moses/petition.html
As you probably know by now I am a Darwinist and not a Creationist but that does not mean that I reject “Intelligent Design” out of hand. (I was asked, during a chat room discussion on evolution, whether I had read Michael Behe. I replied that I had, at which point the person let out a self-rightgeous “Ah HA!”)
What this person didn’t realize is that he asked the wrong question!
Yes, I have read Michael Behe, but that by no means indicates that I agree with him.
On the contrary, his crap about “Irreducible Complexity” is full of holes and contradictions. Besides that, who uses words like irreducible anyways?
No, my point there, and in this article, is that we are asking the wrong questions in the whole debate over creation and evolution. It is not an either/or answer.
First, we have to take a brief look at the whole concept of God and Creation.
Everything we do and wonder about is grounded in THIS Universe and we have to apply the “laws of nature” to understand them in a “this world” context.
Another way to define this is by a line of reasoning by Dr. Michael W. Tkacz concerning some points that were first voiced by Thomas Aquinas.
Strictly speaking, points out Thomas, the Creator does not create something out of nothing in the sense of taking some nothing and making something out of it.
This is a conceptual mistake, for it treats nothing as a something. On the contrary, the Christian doctrine of “creation ex nihilo” claims that God made the universe without making it out of anything.
In other words, anything left entirely to itself, completely separated from the cause of its existence, would not exist—it would be absolutely nothing.
The ultimate cause of the existence of anything and everything is God who creates, not out of some nothing, but from nothing at all.
Now, that is pretty heavy and convoluted, but basically it says that God is not of this universe, but rather “apart” from it and we cannot use physical terms to describe God, or the process (act) of creation.
There is no way we can describe “God and Creation” in “earthly” terms since there is no frame of reference for us.
But, after the Force we describe as God created this universe, IT operates according to laws we can understand. (Science)
In other words, the Universe was created as a single thing quite apart, but caused by, the creator. Then, “after that,” the laws of this universe took over and guided the process of evolution.
With this in mind, and after all is said and done, this means that Creation and Evolution are not an “either / or” proposition. Rather, it turns out that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.
Yes bunky, "Intelligent Design" was used in the creation of the Universe, but since then...............God only knows!
Now, take two aspirins and go do something else!
Yer "The Olde Philosopher" scribe;
Allan W Janssen
Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) at; www.God-101.com
And the petition to have people mind their own business instead of yours at; http://www.petitiononline.com/moses/petition.html
posted by Allan W Janssen | 1:00 p.m.
3 Comments:
Imagine you are watching a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist. The evolutionist stands and gives his 15-minute opening argument on why you should believe that mankind evolved over millions of years from primordial goo through the zoo and finally to you. He presents a rather extensive array of facts that he says point to the obvious truth of evolution. He talks about fossils and science and energy and the rest, hoping to persuade you, the listener, that it is more reasonable, indeed, more intelligent to believe that you have evolved than that you were somehow created by supernatural fiat. He rests his case, gets a round of applause from the audience and sits down. The moderator presents the creationist to you and the creationist opens with the following argument…
“ Thank you Mr. Moderator. Thank you to all who have come here tonight to weigh this subject, for it is not just a subject, it is the subject that will decide everything else about how we think about ourselves and how we live out our lives. And thank you to my opponent tonight, for agreeing to this debate and for spending the last fifteen minutes illustrating the truth of special creation by arguing for the belief of evolution. Now how can I say this? He just stood up here and presented all kinds of evidence that he believes to be in favor of evolution and against the idea of special creation, so how can I say that he, in so doing, has proven special creation? Simply, because my opponent has attempted to persuade us of something. In attempting to do so he has appealed to many different aspects of man, aspects that cannot be explained by evolution. He has made appeal to your mind. He has assumed, as I have, that those of you sitting out there, listening to this debate are rational, intelligent, cogent beings that are capable of making decisions about what is true and what is not. He has assumed that you all are capable of drawing rational conclusions based upon the arguments presented. He has also made appeal to your senses to accurately intake and communicate to your minds the pictures, sounds, and other data that comprised his case. And he has made an appeal to your ability to choose. He has assumed that you and I are capable of choosing to believe in one of these two ideas, of changing our minds based upon his abilities to persuade you or at least based upon the evidence’s force to compel you into believing one of these ideas while rejecting the other. In making these appeals, in assuming these truths, he has proven beyond any doubt that 1) evolution cannot be true and 2) that special creation must be true. Let me elaborate by addressing the first area I mentioned.”
“To do this I want to introduce you to someone named Al. Now I might be stretching the rules of debate a little bit by bringing up someone else, but I needed him to illustrate this point for you. So would everyone give Al Kaseltzer their undivided attention.”
At this point he pulls out of his pocket two Alka-Seltzer tablets and drops them into a glass of water, puts a microphone up to the glass and sits down. 10 seconds pass, twenty, thirty, forty-five, a minute, and then two. Finally he stands and continues…
“Thank you Al. I want to ask those of you in the audience, ‘As we watched Al plop and listened to him fizz, did you come out with a better understanding of our origins from that fizzing? No? As you listened to the sounds emanating from the container did you think that they were insightful, intelligent, meaningful sounds that were communicating valid ideas that correspond to your origins?’”
“At this point you might be thinking that I’ve totally lost it, but before you dismiss me as completely whacked let me ask you this. From an evolutionary scheme what is the difference between Al, myself and my opponent tonight?”
“Evolutionary theory would have you believe that the human race evolved over many millions of years from random chemical interactions combining to finally form you. In other words, you are just a mistake. Actually, we can’t even say a mistake, for mistake assumes original intent. There is no intent, no purpose, or thought, or meaning or plan. According to evolutionary theory you are just a random conglomeration of time, chance, matter and chemical combustion. Hence, so is your mind. Your brain is the accumulation of millions of years of unguided, unintended chemical processes. If this is the case then what in the world makes you think that my opponents mind, or yours for that matter, is a reliable guide that gives meaningful insights and has accurate interpretations of laws of logic and physical phenomena? How is his brain, or mine, or yours, any different from the Alka-Seltzer? The Alka-Seltzer is purely a set of chemicals combusting; excreting gas. So, too, your brain is just random set of chemicals combusting, excreting “brain gas”. In evolution thought is simply the gaseous excretions of the chemical combustions of the goo in your head. So what makes these gaseous excretions intelligent or meaningful? If our brains are just random conglomerations of electro-chemical reactions, how is it any different from any other electro-chemical reactions? What makes one chemical reaction “intelligible thought” while another “unintelligible”? One chemical reaction “logical” while another is “illogical”? One personal and meaningful while another impersonal and meaningless? Whether they come from a container made of glass or of skin and bone, they are all just gaseous excretions.”
“Lets change the metaphor slightly. How is the bodily excretion we call thought any different from any other chemical excretion from your body? They are both just chemicals doing what chemicals do and chemicals reacting the way chemicals react. What makes one more logical than another? In evolution how is cognition any different from flatulation? According to evolution your intestines are the accumulation of millions of years of random chemical reactions, just as your brain is. So what, per se, is the difference between the gaseous excretions of the two? What is the difference between brain gas and intestinal gas? I ask my opponent to explain the qualitative difference between the two excretions from the evolutionary point of view. When did the brain go from just another set of chemicals that excretes what it does to a thinking, reasoning machine where the gas is now intelligent? Are our intestines the same intelligent machine? They came about in the same way as the brain did! Just multiple chemical reactions accumulating over time to make it what it is. So why trust the one for rationality and not the other? Actually, the real question is why trust either of them? They are, after all, unintended, unguided, meaningless happenstances of time. Your brain was designed to think the same way your intestines were designed to think and the Alka-Seltzer was designed to think. They weren’t. They all are just chemicals passing gas. “
“So from the standpoint of evolution, what is intelligence and how does it differ from non-intelligence, one random chemical reaction versus another? How does anyone make that distinction in an evolutionary world? When does the gas become intelligent or rational? How does this occur? What transpires for something to all of a sudden, one Friday afternoon at 3 pm, transform from just another gas to an intelligent, meaningful thought? Was that a chemical reaction? If it was then how is it any different from any other? What made that one intelligent? You end up in the same boat. In the evolutionary worldview there is no basis for intelligence, logic, or rationality. Thought is not meaningful but random. It is neither controlled nor categorized. So too all the concepts interpreted in thought like logic, rationality, sense perception and knowledge of the external world and history. In evolution rational thought and irrational thought are the same. They are both gaseous excretions. Gases doing what gases do. There is no difference between the two. How, then, can we compare thoughts? How can we have this debate? If all thoughts are merely gaseous excretions then all thoughts are equally valid. How can we say that one excretion is true while another is false? Right as opposed to wrong? Logical versus illogical? They are, after all, merely gaseous excretions. Would we say that it’s right for copper to expand when it is heated or wrong for oil and water to separate? It would be like me shaking up a bottle of Pepsi and then asking all of you to determine whether it was right or wrong for the Pepsi to fizz the way it did. That would be nonsense, because the Pepsi just does what it does because it is natural for it to do so. So how can my opponent assert that one belief is true while another is false or make the claim that it is right or wrong for a particular gas (thought or belief) to excrete from the brain when it is natural for it to do so? In evolution there can be no right or wrong thoughts, ideas, or beliefs, just chemicals doing what chemicals do.”
“Yet my opponent has assumed that those listening here tonight are rational. He has assumed that some beliefs are truer than others, some thoughts more valid than other thoughts. He holds that there is a distinction between rational and irrational thought and that one view of the origin of man is more rational than another. He believes that his argument is somehow more valid than Al Kaseltzer’s argument, but please explain to me how this is possible when they are both just chemicals passing gas? He thinks that the excretions from the random chemicals in his head are superior to the excretions of the chemicals in the glass of Alka-Seltzer, but how can this be true in evolution? He believes that the laws of logic and standards of rationality extend beyond individuals. He believes that you, in the audience, are capable of making meaningful decisions based upon his arguments, or he wouldn’t have come. But from an evolutionary standpoint how are the random chemical combinations of your brains any better suited to think and to reason than the chemical combinations of the Alka-Seltzer? Yet, if my opponent had been asked to come and attempt to persuade 200 glasses of Alka-Seltzer that they evolved over millions of years do you really think he would have shown up? Obviously he believes himself and all of you to be much more than random impersonal non-rational masses of matter.”
“ In short, he has assumed special creation in order to persuade you of evolution. By his doing so, he has demonstrated for all of us that evolution cannot be true as well as demonstrating the self-evident truth of special creation. Not only has he assumed this great truth, but so have all of you. Everyone who came tonight to weigh these issues has assumed the specially created intellect of their minds, even if they, up to this point, have believed in evolution. None of those who came tonight thought that you would just be watching soda fizz. You came expecting a meaningful dialogue and transferal of information from intelligent beings. You assumed that my opponent and I were more than just random impersonal chemicals passing gas, as testified to by the immediate distinction you made between the noise coming from the Alka-Seltzer and the noise emanating from the debaters. You have presupposed truths particular only to special creation in order to weigh the subject of evolution.
You have also assumed yourself to be far more than random impersonal non-rational masses of matter, or you would never have shown up nor would you bother to attempt to think anymore. Had you been truly convinced of evolution and followed it to its inevitable conclusion then you would have long ago decided that the pursuit of truth and rationality was an exercise in futility. Yet you are all still here! You are all still trying to come to reasonable conclusions about our origins. You are still attempting to use your intellect as well as your senses because somehow you know that you are far more than just chemicals, that your thoughts are far more than just brain gas.
This is why special creation is self-evident, because it must be assumed for us to think that we are thinking or trust that we are trusting or reason that we are reasoning. You must assume your minds rationality in order to do any other thought, and therefore must assume special creation. It is also self-evident because, as we all now realize, that if it were not for special creation we would never be able to think about evolution or our origins. There would never be theories to analyze, thoughts to ponder, or ideas to believe because without the special creation of your mind there would be no theorizing, thinking or believing at all; just chemicals passing gas.
You have heard of the famous proverb of Rene Descartes, “Cogito ergo sum.” “I think therefore I am.” Actually it ought to be, “I think therefore I was specially created”. That is the necessary conclusion, because if you were not specially created, if your mind is nothing more than chemicals passing gas, then there is no reason to think that you are thinking nor to trust that your thoughts have any correspondence to reality. But since your mind is specially created to make rational decisions and intelligent choices you can reasonably believe that you are able to make rational decisions and intelligent choices.
In summation, evolution undermines rational, meaningful thought. Evolution is therefore self-refuting because it eliminates any possibility of knowing anything, including knowing whether or not evolution is true.
Special creation is the only system that can uphold rational, meaningful thought. Therefore, special creation is self-evidently true. It must be assumed in order to think about anything, including thinking about our origins and evolution.
So once again I would like to thank my opponent for proving my point by making distinctions in thoughts and beliefs and by believing himself and everyone listening to be intelligent, rational thinkers thus disproving evolution and proving special creation. And I would like to further thank him for any rebuttal he may offer, for it too will prove my argument by once again appealing to your specially created intellects.”
Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, oh, what a relief it is.
This comment has been removed by the author.
In your rant you stated;
In the evolutionary worldview there is no basis for intelligence, logic, or rationality. Thought is not meaningful but random. It is neither controlled nor categorized. So too all the concepts interpreted in thought like logic, rationality, sense perception and knowledge of the external world and history. In evolution rational thought and irrational thought are the same. They are both gaseous excretions. Gases doing what gases do.
Yes you are absolutely right, they are excretions.
Your thread of logic is something we commonly refer to as "shit for brains!"
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home