3 Assumptions Evolutionists Make

[Chad]

3 Assumptions Evolutionists Make

Evolutionists like Dr. Richard Dawkins speak authoritatively as if their not-even-theory were as good as fact. But building a case for naturalistic evolution is like trying to build a house in midair. No matter how solid the construction, the house will collapse without a foundation. Thus, evolutionists must assume biblical grounds to support their worldview. These biblical grounds—such as logic, morality, and uniformity stem from the nature and power of the Creator God as revealed in the Bible.¹ Yet evolutionists deny the Creator while resting their faulty beliefs on His foundation. By challenging their faulty basic assumptions that the laws of logic, absolute morality, and the uniformity of nature exist apart from the Creator, the Christian can prove that reasoning, absolute moral standards, and science itself must be based on the biblical worldview.

Evolutionist Assumption #1: Assuming God’s laws of logic to argue for a godless universe

It is ironic that evolutionists argue passionately for a naturalistic universe. If we are just bundles of chemical reactions in a meaningless world, why would it matter what we believe? Evolutionists seek to defend and prove their worldview because they inherently know the Creator yet suppress the truth in order to rebel against His authority (<cite class="bibleref">Romans 1:18–20</cite>). Their very act of trying to persuade, which requires the laws of logic, confirms the existence of the biblical God.

All reasoning must be based on the laws of logic, which are the tools we use to reason correctly and identify fallacious arguments. For example, according to one of the laws of logic, the law of non-contradiction, two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Without laws of logic, a discussion would be useless nonsense. Any meaningful communication assumes these laws.

While an evolutionist might seek to explain the laws of logic apart from the biblical God, his explanations fall short. If the universe consists of only matter in motion, abstract laws of logic would not exist, and no one could prove anything.² Of course, the evolutionist does use laws of logic as he tries to defend his worldview. As Dr. Jason Lisle said, “The fact that he is able to make an argument at all proves that he is wrong.”³

The reason that laws of logic exist is because they stem from the nature of the biblical God.⁴ For example, the law of non-contradiction stems from God, who cannot deny Himself (<cite class="bibleref">2 Timothy 2:13</cite>). Universal, unchanging, and immaterial laws of logic reflect the God who is universal, unchanging, and immaterial.⁵

To challenge the first basic assumption, ask your evolutionist friend, “On what basis do you assume the laws of logic?” Explain that having been created in God’s image, he is using the laws of logic that come from the Creator.

Evolutionist Assumption #2: Assuming absolute moral standards within a world of chemical reactions

It is ironic that evolutionists teach that man is a chance product of evolutionary struggle and death, yet they decry crimes like murder, rape, and theft. According to their worldview, why would those acts be crimes? After all, mankind is supposedly just an advanced animal, and we don’t imprison cheetahs for killing gazelles or bring raccoons to court for stealing chicken eggs. Why shouldn’t we act according to our chemical impulses to fulfill our evolutionary end of the survival of the fittest? In fact, if the evolutionary view were true, we must act according to those chemical impulses; therefore, no one should be held accountable for his actions.

An evolutionary worldview supports relative morality, the idea that no ultimate standards exist. An evolutionist may give lip service to the idea of relativism, but he expects absolute morality from others. If he doesn’t think so, tell him you’ll take his wallet. He inherently knows absolute standards of right and wrong because God has given him a conscience (<cite class="bibleref">Romans 1:32; 2:15</cite>).

To challenge the second basic assumption, ask your evolutionist friend, “On what basis do you assume absolute morality?” His inherent knowledge of absolute morality is God-given.

While some evolutionists try to offer alternatives, only the biblical worldview can uphold absolute morality. Because God created us for His glory, we are responsible to live according to His perfect standard. Instead, we all have rebelled against God and fall short of His glory (<cite class="bibleref">Romans 3:23</cite>). Man’s sin brought the curse of suffering and death into the world (<cite class="bibleref">Romans 6:23</cite>). Yet God sent His own Son to perfectly fulfill His standard and take the punishment for believing sinners by dying on the Cross and then rising victoriously from the grave (<cite class="bibleref">Colossians 1:21–22</cite>).

Evolutionist Assumption #3: Assuming the order in the universe came from disorder

It is ironic that evolutionists often poke fun of “dark age creation science” when they could not even practice science apart from the biblical God. Scientific study is based on the uniformity of nature: the laws of nature do not arbitrarily change with time and space.⁶ Otherwise, how could scientists experiment and make predictions if physical laws didn’t operate consistently? Uniformity makes no sense in a random chance world of evolution. How can the evolutionist assume that the future will reflect the past in a mindless world begun with a big bang?

While evolutionists have proposed other reasons, only the biblical worldview gives an adequate basis for the uniformity of nature. The Bible says God created the universe, instituting and promising the uniformity of nature (<cite class="bibleref">Genesis 8:22</cite>). Christ Himself upholds the universe through the physical laws He ordained (<cite class="bibleref">Colossians 1:16–17</cite>; <cite class="bibleref">Hebrews 1:3</cite>).⁷

To challenge the third basic assumption, ask your evolutionist friend, “On what basis do you assume the uniformity of nature?” Explain that his assumption of uniformity is actually based on the biblical worldview. Whether a scientist denies or believes in Him, God sustaining the universe through physical laws is the only reason science is possible.

In conclusion, the title of this article, “Never Assume,” is a bit of a misnomer because everyone has basic assumptions. The Christian assumes the truth of God’s revealed Word, whereas the non-Christian must assume the truth of man’s opinions. In fact, the non-Christian’s most basic assumptions actually rest on biblical truth. Standing on biblical ground and showing non-Christians that they, too, are standing there is the ultimate approach to defending the faith.

Evolutionists may never be persuaded by evidence alone, since they interpret the evidence according to their worldview. But by challenging their worldview, you can show that their assumptions—from logic to absolute morality to uniformity—are actually resting on biblical ground. Stand firm on the Word of God, respectfully challenge their assumptions, and ask the Lord to help them see His Word is true.

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

 

[David777]

Correct.

Very good thread, Chad. Assumptions as usual are where the errors occur. Because secular man has to make assumptions in order to follow rational lines of thought. These rational thoughts advance the initial idea into a field of learning. Many people are unaware of the assumptions science, economics, politics, etc.

Evolution is a particularly nasty application of rational thought based on the most extreme assumption set.

If evolution had occurred, we would have found the evidence for it through the fossil records. Evolution would have been proven by now. This did not occur, rather the absence of evidence is what is obvious.

Still they have not pondered the initial assumptions.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Great Post Chad,
With your permission I’d like to use this in correspondence with a young man who came to a bible study at my church for about a month, and is a self proclaimed atheist. I doubt this because he seems to be in the search mode. Why search for something that doesn’t exist? He has since moved back home yet I asked for his address which he provided before leaving to another state.
Enjoyed your post as you can tell, from my wanting to use it. I will add from a book written by Dr. Henry Morris whose son died in service to our Lord, which is very instructive. His research has provided a quote from Scientist Isaac Asimov in which Asimov states that he has no “evidence to prove that, God doesn’t exist.” If Asimov has no evidence against God, we can be sure nobody does! He believes in humanism/atheism simply because that is what he wants to believe! The same is true for every other devote of this man-centered religion. Yet they commonly deride creationism because it requires religious faith! One naturally thinks of Psalm 53:12 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God"."
That is why Chad, when I meet someone who proclaims to be an atheist, like I did with the young man above, I automatically tell him, that it’s nice to meet a man of great faith. Since most atheist associate faith with religion, I always wind up telling them that we look at the same things such as the heavens, however when I look I see the glory of God Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. While he only sees an accident.
Once again, thanks for an excellent post! Also, let me know if it’s okay to use. YBIC

 

[Neuroscience101]

3 Assumptions Evolutionists Make

Evolutionist Assumption #1: Assuming God’s laws of logic to argue for a godless universe

It is ironic that evolutionists argue passionately for a naturalistic universe. If we are just bundles of chemical reactions in a meaningless world, why would it matter what we believe?

Actually, Chad, some of my good friends are Atheists and I'm familiar enough with the debate to know that's a bad way to generalize it.

It's arguing the micro mechanics for a macro perception. To play devil's advocate, it matters what we believe because we have the self-concept to recognize what we are. Not atheists or scientist will say it doesn't matter what we believe since we're just organic compounds; to do so is inevitably nihilism and in no way associated with science or atheism.

Evolutionist Assumption #2: Assuming absolute moral standards within a world of chemical reactions

It is ironic that evolutionists teach that man is a chance product of evolutionary struggle and death, yet they decry crimes like murder, rape, and theft. According to their worldview, why would those acts be crimes?

Again, a very bad generalization which can be answered with the previous answer. It matters because we understand the problem. Simply because someone doesn't believe in a God does not mean they don't care if they die; in fact, not believing in a God may lead them to feel that life is very precious.

Evolutionist Assumption #3: Assuming the order in the universe came from disorder

It is ironic that evolutionists often poke fun of “dark age creation science” when they could not even practice science apart from the biblical God. ]

Ignoring the logic jump, I'm not sure what cosmology and evolution have to do with each other. Saying those two are related is like saying that I'm related to my computer monitor - they're just not the same thing.

 

[Neuroscience101]

While he only sees an accident.

I'm not sure that's very fair. I don't know of many atheists who I haven't enthused about the universe with. Many of the atheists I know think the universe we have is beautiful, enigmatic, and wonderous. The difference between them and you is that you see the glory of God, and they see the inevitable conclusion of physics in action. I've asked one and he doesn't think it's an "accident" as much as it is - in his words - "pretty darn cool."

Then again, he's into physics :embarasse

 

[Christ4Ever]

I'm sure he things it's pretty darn cool, but then I think God was pretty darn cool for having created it! I don’t mean that negatively. However, it has to be seen as an accident, otherwise it’s a “who did it” kind of mystery. Which I'm sure is not one an atheist would not be willing to acknowledge :-( I have a brother-in-law who’s an Astrophysicist and is a professor, but does acknowledge Christ Jesus as his savior! Amazing how some can see it and sadly how some do not, but there's always hope for them that don't! Here's a book for your friend and for yourself if interested, which the brother-in-law thought had some good insight, and too be honest in some of the science parts are way beyond me. The Long War Against God (The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict) by Dr. Henry Morris. Praying that your friend might see not only God in Creation and both of you might know Jesus Christ as Savior!

 

[Neuroscience101]

I'm sure he things it's pretty darn cool, but then I think God was pretty darn cool for having created it! I don’t mean that negatively. However, it has to be seen as an accident, otherwise it’s a “who did it” kind of mystery. Which I'm sure is not one an atheist would not be willing to acknowledge :-( I have a brother-in-law who’s an Astrophysicist and is a professor, but does acknowledge Christ Jesus as his savior! Amazing how some can see it and sadly how some do not, but there's always hope for them that don't! Here's a book for your friend and for yourself if interested, which the brother-in-law thought had some good insight, and too be honest in some of the science parts are way beyond me. The Long War Against God (The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict) by Dr. Henry Morris. Praying that your friend might see not only God in Creation and both of you might know Jesus Christ as Savior!

I should have some time between research this summer so I'll definitely give it a look. Thanks!

I suppose I should qualify the atheists statement; I'm referring to atheists in the colloquial sense and not the verbatim sense. The more "I have no belief" than "I belief there is no god"; my friends are "soft atheists." I, myself, am in that turbulent state myself.

I'm also not sure that belief in Christ and knowledge of cosmology are mutually exclusive. I suppose it comes down to whether or not you believe in a fundamental/literal interpretation of genesis.

 

[will]

Chad,
I, as a fellow recipient of God's mercy and grace, of course fully in agreement with your dissertations and the biblical revelation on these matters.

However please allow me to argue from the other side for the purpose to further this discussion.

Evolutionist Assumption #1: Assuming God’s laws of logic to argue for a godless universe

To challenge the first basic assumption, ask your evolutionist friend, “On what basis do you assume the laws of logic?” Explain that having been created in God’s image, he is using the laws of logic that come from the Creator.

Atheists, probably spurred by their new wave of thinkers, already have an answer for the origins of what we call "the laws of logic." Some of them seem to claim that logic was the result of human interaction with each other. A mutual agreement (written or otherwise) on what is true and what is false based on (and motivated by) communal survival instincts.

This is where we should start our discussion with our atheist friends. We need to point out that the argument that human mind came up with logic is not only impossible, it's illogical.

The correct question to ask is, "if we (human) invented logic, what did we have prior to that invention? an illogical universe? if so, who determined that it's time to end the illogical universe and come up with a logical one? doesn't that determination then depend on the pre-existence of logic?"

A related question can also be asked: "if we invented logic, what were the components of logic and how did we put those together to form logic?"

The truth is of course (as you alluded to in the original post): Logic is an adherence to an existing immutable (from our perspective) laws. The human mind can observe and exercise choice based on logic, but is unable to alter, ignore, or abolish it.

I'll get to Assumption #2 and #3, but I'd like to hear what do you all think so far.

 

[Neuroscience101]

This is where we should start our discussion with our atheist friends. We need to point out that the argument that human mind came up with logic is not only impossible, it's illogical.

The correct question to ask is, "if we (human) invented logic, what did we have prior to that invention? an illogical universe? if so, who determined that it's time to end the illogical universe and come up with a logical one? doesn't that determination then depend on the pre-existence of logic?"

A related question can also be asked: "if we invented logic, what were the components of logic and how did we put those together to form logic?"

The truth is of course (as you alluded to in the original post): Logic is an adherence to an existing immutable (from our perspective) laws. The human mind can observe and exercise choice based on logic, but is unable to alter, ignore, or abolish it.

If I may be so bold as to jump in, the argument you're presenting is basically a fallacy of equivocation based on the article. The laws of logic and the laws of physics aren't the same thing, and the idea of a "naturalistic universe" arguing against God is a strange claim; there's nothing in science that would say if there was or was not a God. It simply explains the natural component of the phenomena.

It also seems like you're claiming that "logic" - if humans created it - did not exist before humans coined it. That's non-sensical; Gravity existed before humans came up with a concept and theory for how it worked. Simply because humanity doesn't have a definition for it or has seen it, does not mean it does not exist. To quote many people, "The abscence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence" (the caveat being that the evidence of abscence is the evidence of abscence -- not a typo).

There's no reason to assume, granting humans created logic, that the universe was illogical before logic was coined. Logic is more of an explanatory mechanism that an absolute thing spurned into existence. It's a bit like the concept of "depression"; we Psychologists can't "see" depression, but we have definitions for it and tests for it. We have no reason to suspect that we caused it to be by simply defining it, but rather that we attached a definition to a preexisting phenomena.

The latter part is an argument from ignorance; simply because the other side might be wrong about the origin of logic does not make the other argument more plausible. There's nothing supporting your assertion that logic, itself, is a constant.

 

[Christ4Ever]

I'm also not sure that belief in Christ and knowledge of cosmology are mutually exclusive. I suppose it comes down to whether or not you believe in a fundamental/literal interpretation of genesis.

Actually they must be if you attribute the NT and the words written there to Christ Jesus. Here are a couple of examples of Jesus referencing back to Genesis which might help out.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mark 13:19 For (in) those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

Luke 11:50-51 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; (51) From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Note: Abel was Adam & Eve’s son.

I have a feeling that you might find some interesting concepts awaiting you when you read the book I suggested you take a look at.
Praying that you might find Him (God) as you continue to search for the truth and that one day you might as I do, call Jesus Lord and Savior!

Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find (me), when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

 

[jari]

@Neuroscience101
I think you misunderstood the points in OP a little bit.. the points werent about way people see things, it was about how the human behaviour and lawful thinking contradicts evolution theory of survival.
And if we are just living organisms why does it matter at all what we believe? (Why people think about God, eternity , etc, if were just living organisms?)
atleast thats what i got from the OP

 

[David777]

Dear neuroscience.

What is a soft Athiest. I cannot even find out what an athiest is. They seem to have different criteria as the base for what they believe (or is that what they do not believe).

For instance, one definition provides that an athiest does not believe in deities. If this is a reliable definition then my questions is. If the deity is supernatural, how could an athiest know whether this deity existed. Supernatural is beyond reason and rationality. Hence, beyond the atheist's ability to understand or know. Would not agnosticism be a better bet.

Another definition of athiesm, says that an atheist rejects deities due to a lack of empirical data. I may not be the brightest bulb in the room, but, I thought revelation and miracles were beyond the natural. They never occured due to some empirical mechanism. This is what I do not understand about this definition.

I would appreciate it if you could explain this to me. Also, what is a soft athiest?

 

[Neuroscience101]

Actually they must be if you attribute the NT and the words written there to Christ Jesus. Here are a couple of examples of Jesus referencing back to Genesis which might help out.

Cosmology isn't concerned with the origin of life (as we know it anyway). It's merely concerned - in a broad sense - with astrophysics; don't quote me on that though. I'm not a physicist.

It's strange that you think the two are though. Don't you have a professor friend who studies astrophysics? Does he think cosmology is all a bunch of fluff then?

Regardless, I looking forward to picking up the book at my next paycheck!

I think you misunderstood the points in OP a little bit. the points werent about way people see things, it was about how the human behaviour and lawful thinking contradicts evolution theory of survival.
And if we are just living organisms why does it matter at all what we believe? (Why people think about God, eternity , etc, if were just living organisms?)
atleast thats what i got from the OP

No. Evolution via natural selection does not contradict human behavior. Human behavior is a complex work of nature vs. nurture. I should know; it is my field after all True, it's exclusionary when treated solely, but we understand that it's not the sole factor on behavior. Evolution via natural selection doesn't contradict human behavior, or even rational thinking. Keep in mind, we weren't aware of natural selection before; following the idea that complex processes take millions of years to develop, it stands to reason that it takes time for them to deconstruct as well.

Evolution via natural selection says nothing about we believe, though there may be a social component to beliefs as revealed in evolutionary psychology. In that regard, we would explain beliefs as integral to forming societies and fulfilling our need for affiliation. There's nothing wrong with belief and I don't know a scientist who would say that you shouldn't have belief. It's an interesting human trait.

What is a soft Athiest. I cannot even find out what an athiest is. They seem to have different criteria as the base for what they believe (or is that what they do not believe).

For instance, one definition provides that an athiest does not believe in deities. If this is a reliable definition then my questions is. If the deity is supernatural, how could an athiest know whether this deity existed. Supernatural is beyond reason and rationality. Hence, beyond the atheist's ability to understand or know. Would not agnosticism be a better bet.

Another definition of athiesm, says that an atheist rejects deities due to a lack of empirical data. I may not be the brightest bulb in the room, but, I thought revelation and miracles were beyond the natural. They never occured due to some empirical mechanism. This is what I do not understand about this definition.

I would appreciate it if you could explain this to me. Also, what is a soft athiest?

David, most people will say that Atheism - in the literal use - is the belief in no Gods. On that idea, Atheism is a belief. This is often referred to as "hard atheism" -- which is simply saying, "I understand that absolute knowledge is impossible, but I believe there is no God or Deity."

However, most Atheists call themselves that in an idea of "everyday" use which is simply they lack a belief in a God or deity. These generally fall under the perscription of "soft atheism" -- which is simply saying, 'I don't have a belief in a God or deity, and ultimately understand that absolute knowledge is impossible.'

Agnosticism is more of a philsophical viewpoint on knowledge in general, simply claiming that absolute knowledge is impossible. This leads to the perplexing rise of "Agnostic atheists" which are pretty much soft atheists. It can get a bit confusing, but it's no more difficult than trying to pick through differences in Islam, Christianity, or any other major religion. The difference is that Atheism comes down to a very core and personal belief without any sort of holy guidance.

To go back on the idea of the supernatural, this eventually leads us into a case of special pleading, if you argue that the Atheists cannot know of the supernatural, then there's no way that the Muslim, the Christian or the Witch-doctor could know of the supernatural. This leads to belief, which those of faith have and the Atheists lacks. I don't see the issue arguing that atheists lac belief, as belief and knowledge are not synonymous.

As for the idea that miracles are outside the bound of the natural, that shouldn't be entirely true. I believe I wrote this out before, but if the supernatural acts on the natural, it should be detectable.

For instance, if you believe in Ghosts, then how much does a Ghost weigh? It must have mass to interact with the physical world because the laws of conservation simply demand it. If the ghost didn't have mass, it would be hurled at thousands of meters per second due to the Earths rotation.

So, yes, the supernatural in its essence would - by definition - be undetectable by anyone. However, it's when the two "natures" interact that both should be detectable. Consider when Jesus turned water into wine. We probably couldn't explain the supernatural essence when it was water, but the moment Jesus changed the water, he broke powerful hydrogen bonds, materialized carbon bonded to the oxygen and a host of other wonderful chemical reactions. That's the part that should be detectable. And, if someone were to determine that there was no other possible way for water to be turned into wine so quickly, an explanation of an outside force would be necessary which may in time point to a supernatural.

Wow, I just threw a ton of information at you guys. Sorry about that :embarasse

 

[jari]

No. Evolution via natural selection does not contradict human behavior. Human behavior is a complex work of nature vs. nurture. I should know; it is my field after all True, it's exclusionary when treated solely, but we understand that it's not the sole factor on behavior. Evolution via natural selection doesn't contradict human behavior, or even rational thinking. Keep in mind, we weren't aware of natural selection before; following the idea that complex processes take millions of years to develop, it stands to reason that it takes time for them to deconstruct as well.

Evolution via natural selection says nothing about we believe, though there may be a social component to beliefs as revealed in evolutionary psychology. In that regard, we would explain beliefs as integral to forming societies and fulfilling our need for affiliation. There's nothing wrong with belief and I don't know a scientist who would say that you shouldn't have belief. It's an interesting human trait.

Its not my fault that scientist theorise that its all just battle for survival and yet we humans have taken off from that path to sociality and have sympathy.
Which is what seperates us from animals, that we dont follow evolutions path.

And that reminds me to ask, why do you think things evolve in first place? Its not a will to be best. Perhaps its just survival but what "made" life so smart it could see the benefit to born stronger in each generation? Or what gave this will?

I think lot of this evolution theory is taken for granted that "things just evolve" no questions asked. I mean its far easier for me to look what we are because there seems to be far clearer reasons for us being the way we are than to just think we must come to be like this in "thought and form" out of random and out of reasonless progressing to better creatures.



Btw. I have heard quite a lot scientist say that you shouldnt belive and believing is for people with flaw X.
(Where X can be: fear of dark, stupidity, hallusinations, etc)

Which seems quite bold for them to dissregard so many people's belief in God in this planet and say they are just stupid.

 

[David777]

Thanks Neuroscience.

Appreciate the info on athiesm. Will cojutate and get back to you soon. Life must be attended to now.

 

[Neuroscience101]

Its not my fault that scientist theorise that its all just battle for survival and yet we humans have taken off from that path to sociality and have sympathy.
Which is what seperates us from animals, that we dont follow evolutions path.

I'm not blaming you. It's just that the idea of natural selection isn't that simple and it could still be said that we did follow evolutions path; we did come out the strongest, didn't we? In any case, some evolutionary psychologists are hypothesizing that things such as sympathy, socialization, and other things are evolutionary benefits; our primate cousins also socialize and some show sympathy which aids in forming bonds.

Don't think this means that "Evolution and genetics will take over everything." A few geneticists recently discovered that the environment also plays a role in addition to genetics. We Psychologists have been saying that for the past century or so. :shade:

And that reminds me to ask, why do you think things evolve in first place? Its not a will to be best. Perhaps its just survival but what "made" life so smart it could see the benefit to born stronger in each generation? Or what gave this will?

Ha! That begs the question, "Why do you think life is smart?"

Kidding aside, it's an interesting question and probably an interesting line of research that I'm not familiar with; I do study Psychology but I'm shying away from any in-depth Evo-Psych theories. I would probably speculate that evolution via natural selection is not a controlled process; no one said, "I'm going to have a trait that makes me more adaptive today" and just ran with it. It could probably be explained by mutations in the genome that contribute to macro functioning. That's just wild speculation though.

The latter question though seems geared at self-concept, or the "How do we know ourselves?" idea. William James originally looked at self-concept and we now know that both we and bonobos can recognize ourselves in a mirror, indicating that we have thoughts about who and what we are. I'm not sure how the Evo-Psychologist would explain that, but I'll check the journals and see what I can find. If there's nothing, it'll be interesting to see what research they do.

I think lot of this evolution theory is taken for granted that "things just evolve" no questions asked. I mean its far easier for me to look what we are because there seems to be far clearer reasons for us being the way we are than to just think we must come to be like this in "thought and form" out of random and out of reasonless progressing to better creatures. Btw. I have heard quite a lot scientist say that you shouldnt belive and believing is for people with flaw X.
(Where X can be: fear of dark, stupidity, hallusinations, etc)
Which seems quite bold for them to dissregard so many people's belief in God in this planet and say they are just stupid.

I'm not sure it's taken for granted, but I would say that most of the country isn't completely in-tune with how science works. It would be nice if High-school taught research methodology and actually released the reference list on the Origin of Species from time to time.

I also think that it's much easier for most people to consider a reason, or purpose, for being as opposed to inevitable progression. Though, I do have to credit those who can form their own purpose for their lives.

As for the scientists, you've probably heard mostly of Dawkins and others of his ilk. He's what we'd call a "Hard Atheist"
Nice guy, very respectable researcher, and it is true that 95% of scientific institutions reject certain forms of God (may be lower, can't remember for sure).

Still, I can understand why that's upsetting for both parties.

 

[will]

If I may be so bold as to jump in, the argument you're presenting is basically a fallacy of equivocation based on the article. The laws of logic and the laws of physics aren't the same thing, and the idea of a "naturalistic universe" arguing against God is a strange claim; there's nothing in science that would say if there was or was not a God. It simply explains the natural component of the phenomena.

I'm not sure I follow you. I didn't mention the laws of physics at all.
As for scientific discoveries saying anything, that is also incorrect. Discoveries come up with facts. It is up to the people reading the facts to interpret those facts and determine whether those support or don't support their position regarding the existence of God.

It also seems like you're claiming that "logic" - if humans created it - did not exist before humans coined it. That's non-sensical; Gravity existed before humans came up with a concept and theory for how it worked. Simply because humanity doesn't have a definition for it or has seen it, does not mean it does not exist. To quote many people, "The abscence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence" (the caveat being that the evidence of abscence is the evidence of abscence -- not a typo).

I'm sure you realize the difference between 'inventing' and 'discovering'. We discover Gravity. No one claimed they invented Gravity. See the difference?

However some ahteists claimed that logic is a human invention, that it is created through human interaction with each other. Not discovered. Why do they hold on to this position? because if they say that human discovered logic, then they are up against the bible statement that God created everything. Therefore including the laws of logic.

Now, having established that the matter at hand is that of invention, not discovery, it is then a logical question to ask how did human live prior to this invention of logic.

There's no reason to assume, granting humans created logic, that the universe was illogical before logic was coined. Logic is more of an explanatory mechanism that an absolute thing spurned into existence. It's a bit like the concept of "depression"; we Psychologists can't "see" depression, but we have definitions for it and tests for it. We have no reason to suspect that we caused it to be by simply defining it, but rather that we attached a definition to a preexisting phenomena.

Explaining what? (see bold sentence above)
If you say that Logic is an explanatory mechanism, then you have to tell me what it is explaining?

Furthermore, logic is not a concept, it is beyond a concept. A concept is a set of thoughts or ideas that are confined within the terms defined by logic.

The latter part is an argument from ignorance; simply because the other side might be wrong about the origin of logic does not make the other argument more plausible. There's nothing supporting your assertion that logic, itself, is a constant.

And you make the above statement without the constraint of logic?
Then your statement is illogical.
Chad is correct in pointing out that we cannot even construct an argument without observing the laws of logic.
What I was trying to point out is that some of the atheists already have what they believe to be an answer to the questions he posed as a "challenge."

 

[will]

David, most people will say that Atheism - in the literal use - is the belief in no Gods. On that idea, Atheism is a belief. This is often referred to as "hard atheism" -- which is simply saying, "I understand that absolute knowledge is impossible, but I believe there is no God or Deity."

However, most Atheists call themselves that in an idea of "everyday" use which is simply they lack a belief in a God or deity. These generally fall under the perscription of "soft atheism" -- which is simply saying, 'I don't have a belief in a God or deity, and ultimately understand that absolute knowledge is impossible.'

Agnosticism is more of a philsophical viewpoint on knowledge in general, simply claiming that absolute knowledge is impossible. This leads to the perplexing rise of "Agnostic atheists" which are pretty much soft atheists. It can get a bit confusing, but it's no more difficult than trying to pick through differences in Islam, Christianity, or any other major religion. The difference is that Atheism comes down to a very core and personal belief without any sort of holy guidance.

To go back on the idea of the supernatural, this eventually leads us into a case of special pleading, if you argue that the Atheists cannot know of the supernatural, then there's no way that the Muslim, the Christian or the Witch-doctor could know of the supernatural. This leads to belief, which those of faith have and the Atheists lacks. I don't see the issue arguing that atheists lac belief, as belief and knowledge are not synonymous.

...

I am so glad that you pinpoint the core of the matter, that is 'a belief'. Atheists and Christians alike hold on to their own beliefs. And they disagree on what they believe.

Only when both sides arrive at this point, then the discussion can be useful, even meaningful. Because either side can now present what compelled them into believing in a certain way.

Unfortunately, in theory, that is nice, but in practicality, it's nigh impossible :shock:

I don't know about you, but in my own experience, it is supremely hard to get to the point where both myself and my atheist friends agree that we are discussing our beliefs, not hard proofs.

And it is equally hard for me to point out to my fellow Christian brothers and sisters to keep beliefs at the center of the discussions. Most of the time we tend to get sucked into fact-gathering match which usually ended up in a shouting match instead.

A side point, I also like the way you describe the interaction points between supernatural and natural. The Scriptures call those "miracles."

Wow, I just threw a ton of information at you guys. Sorry about that :embarasse

Don't worry about it. At least I enjoy the discussions.

 

[Neuroscience101]

I'm not sure I follow you. I didn't mention the laws of physics at all.
As for scientific discoveries saying anything, that is also incorrect. Discoveries come up with facts. It is up to the people reading the facts to interpret those facts and determine whether those support or don't support their position regarding the existence of God.

It doesn't matter. The article equivocates physical properties and laws with logic laws. It's a fundamental problem we're dealing with.

Uh, I don't think I said anything in my post to you about the science and discoveries. Unless you mean the existence of God, in which case, No, science will not tell you that God does not exist. Its findings will simply argue against an omnipotent, interventionist God.

There seems to be this stigma that "Science" is an singular ideal; it's not.

However some ahteists claimed that logic is a human invention, that it is created through human interaction with each other. Not discovered. Why do they hold on to this position? because if they say that human discovered logic, then they are up against the bible statement that God created everything. Therefore including the laws of logic.

Now, having established that the matter at hand is that of invention, not discovery, it is then a logical question to ask how did human live prior to this invention of logic.

No. The bold is a classic false dichotomy and an argument from ignorance. It presents only two options (either logic was invented, or it was discovered and God exists) and provides evidence for neither of them, asserting that if one is wrong then the other must be right. Chads article mentioned the logical law of non-Contradiction. What it so wonderfully forgets to mention is that two contradictory statements can both be wrong.

If certain Atheists can't prove that logic is an invention, that does not give credence to the argument that God created the rules of logic. Disproving one does not prove the other; the other needs its own evidence.

Yes, I understand the difference between discovering and inventing. However, logic could have existed before humans formally refined and developed it. In that sense, the formal rules of logic are an invention while the idea of logic itself is more of a discovery as it is entirely possible for it to exist prior to the invention of formal rules. -- Logic, as a concept, is an invention but logic itself was a natural process. Some would call it an invention; I wouldn't in the same way I wouldn't call the formation of Hydrogen and Helium from the cooling of energy an invention.

Explaining what? (see bold sentence above)
If you say that Logic is an explanatory mechanism, then you have to tell me what it is explaining?

Furthermore, logic is not a concept, it is beyond a concept. A concept is a set of thoughts or ideas that are confined within the terms defined by logic.

If we assume that humans "invented logic", then the use of logic is only an explanatory mechanism for natural processes occurring in our universe (I believe I said this previously and you missed it).

I also don't believe I said it was a concept; I remember alluding to the similarity between the nature of logic and the nature of psychometrics, but that's about it.

And you make the above statement without the constraint of logic?
Then your statement is illogical.
Chad is correct in pointing out that we cannot even construct an argument without observing the laws of logic.
What I was trying to point out is that some of the atheists already have what they believe to be an answer to the questions he posed as a "challenge."

No, it's not illogical. There is no statement outside the idea of logic. It is completely logical for both sides to be wrong. Now you're simply making up rules for logic.

No, we could totally construct an argument without the rules of logic; it would be an illogical argument such as, "It rains outside, therefore the sky is purple."

Chad didn't post any questions; the article in question, which I addressed in my original post, equivocates concepts and implies incorrect things about atheists and those who understand evolution. The last part, in the third "Evolutionist assumption" is a problem of complete non-sequitur; there's no evidence provided to claim that the laws of Logic come from God - which is a bit disingenuous because it is really referring to the biblical God - and the article doesn't provide any evidence to help that claim, aside from "Evolution is wrong".

Of course, the problem with that idea is that both can be wrong; again, false dichotomy and argument from ignorance.

 

[Neuroscience101]

I am so glad that you pinpoint the core of the matter, that is 'a belief'. Atheists and Christians alike hold on to their own beliefs. And they disagree on what they believe.

Only when both sides arrive at this point, then the discussion can be useful, even meaningful. Because either side can now present what compelled them into believing in a certain way.

Unfortunately, in theory, that is nice, but in practicality, it's nigh impossible :shock:

I don't know about you, but in my own experience, it is supremely hard to get to the point where both myself and my atheist friends agree that we are discussing our beliefs, not hard proofs.

And it is equally hard for me to point out to my fellow Christian brothers and sisters to keep beliefs at the center of the discussions. Most of the time we tend to get sucked into fact-gathering match which usually ended up in a shouting match instead.

A side point, I also like the way you describe the interaction points between supernatural and natural. The Scriptures call those "miracles."

Thank you for the kind words, Will! Though, I do have to point out that colloquial "Soft Atheism" isn't considered to be a belief by most atheists. The common argument would be that if non-belief is a belief then off is a T.V. channel.

It's probably difficult discuss with them because they see it as not having a belief, which is not the same as belief. Most soft atheists - those who simply lack belief - don't have a belief for most anything; they have lack of, but not actual belief.