RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Evolution is anti-science...it's all in the mind, Anti-evolution< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2008,05:33   

According to Dr. Jason Lisle belief in Evolution is merely a result of chemical reations in the brain:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....science

Quote
Evolution Is Irrational
In fact, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true” not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.


Quote
Conclusions
Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not be possible because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions. Evolutionists are able to do science and gain knowledge only because they are inconsistent; professing to believe in evolution, while accepting the principles of biblical creation.

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2008,06:45   

Stale, warmed-over Plantinga.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2008,07:15   

What's funny is that Plantinga's argument applies most forcefully to agent creation. There are many, many more ways in which cognitive apparatus can be constructed that does not simply map stimuli to "true" conditions, therefore the assertion that positing an agent as creator escapes the issue is just begging the question. One has to not only assert the existence of an unevidenced creator, but one also has to assert that the creator chose not to use any of the possible cognitive structures with the faults Plantinga lists.

Since Plantinga's other discussion of existence of a creator is basically to dismiss contrary arguments and say one might as well believe in a creator, he doesn't have recourse to the tradition of Paley, that the attributes of the creator may be learned from the properties of the creation.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2008,16:08   

Wes I trust you have read Plantigna more than I, although I have dug around a bit.  I was just going to post this in the off-chance that anyone was interested in observing how a real-life proponent of this argument attempts to make the case.


tard.

At some point I gave up on taking this seriously and just started having fun.  It's a pretty dumb line of thinking, IMO.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
  3 replies since Feb. 14 2008,05:33 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]