| | | What “explanation”…?! |  |
| | | كاتب الموضوع | رسالة |
|---|
أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49335
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: What “explanation”…?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 2:29 pm | |
|
What “explanation” … ?!
Atheists would so commonly raise the “complaint” that believers in a creator do not “explain” anything, and that they only manage to escape the question by saying: This is the work of God!
The problem here is in the position they take for granted; the blind position that any question they ask, is by necessity:
1 – plausible, reasonable, and legitimate
2 – has to be answered by nothing but observable material causes that are analogous in every way to those we currently know and understand!
This position comes from a materialist philosophy, the foundations of which are far more corrupt than those people think they know!
First of all, whoever said that I should accord myself and my answers with a question that I know - and can easily prove – is entirely built on false philosophy and corrupt reason? When you ask me to explain something that is beyond the ability of the human mind to explain or imagine 18, and then you come to blame me for resorting to an answer that invokes an agent at the end of the regress the nature of which cannot be explained as well; this is not a deficiency in my answer; it‟s in fact a fundamental problem with your epistemic conception of the question in hand! If anything, it‟s not me who‟s answering too little; it‟s you who is asking too much!
In the previous chapter we gave many examples of “rationally corrupt” questions, like when a man asks: Can God Kill himself and stay alive? Or Can God create a rock he cannot carry? … etc.! We explained that no reasonable man has to do anything in response to such stupid questions but prove to the one who asks them that they‟re rationally corrupt and cannot be answered!
This is the point!
---------------------------------------------
18 Reason necessitates that this act of creation cannot be analogized to anything we know or have ever seen!
230
Your questions are not all by necessity rational, or wise, or at least, valuable to human knowledge! So, let‟s examine the validity and rationality of the query itself in the light of human capacity, and the powers of his tools of observation and research, not to mention in the light of wisdom and ethics; before we speak of whether or not this “explanation” or that is satisfactory and reasonable as an answer to the question of origins!
I am not EXPLAINING anything when I say that the creator did it; I‟m only saying that though I may not be capable of answering this question in detail, I do know that it is by necessity part of the works of the creator, who is by necessity, external and cannot be analogized to any part of the system that He created!
The belief that there is nothing that man cannot do, or his mind cannot grasp, is absolutely false, and is easily proven false by the mere examination of the way the human mind itself works, and of the history of human knowledge itself! The mere variance among human minds from “dead stupid” to “genius” proves it! The very fact that we cannot solve two problems (simultaneously) or think about two issues at the same time, proves it! The fact that we do forget, err, get surprised, change our minds, regret, fear, and so forth; proves it!
So what kind of an “explanation” is he talking about, and of what exactly? Of the origins of natural life? What‟s the purpose of such a query? Is he, the atheist, seeking to possess the ability to perhaps create another universe, or to create natural life from dead matter in a lab? Nope! This is not the real urge (although it is there in the hearts of some of them)! I say this, speaking of what they call science not what they call “science fiction”; even though in their blindly ambitious delusion they can hardly make any distinction between what is rationally possible and what is not!
By seeking “explanation”, an atheist is simply trying to satisfy a humanly inevitable need to know where he came from and where he is going! This is the true urge and motive. But what does this have to do with how natural life emerged on Earth? Whoever said that we the humans can or even need to know how natural life emerged on Earth? We rather need to know who, or
231
what caused it to be, and essentially: WHY! This is the question that is really definitive of who we are, what we are here for, and whatever awaits us after death! And it is clear that we cannot make up an answer to that! We have to obtain it from the only source it is to be obtained from; the evidently authentic teachings of the creator Himself!
So not only do they lack the ability to answer the questions they‟re asking and taking false routes to acquire an answer to; they don‟t even know the right question to ask for that end, to begin with!
Origination of life is obviously a process that must have involved a transformation that is external to our limited human ability to imagine! The first transformation from a bunch of dead inanimate atoms, into a fully functional initial living being (it has to start fully functional or else it will not survive as a living thing to begin with!), is by necessity un-analogous to anything we have ever seen! We have only seen species breeding from one another! We have only seen elements of the system interacting! So whatever does this interaction and the way it takes place, have to do with the process that caused the system itself to originate! That process is clearly and rationally unlike any process of creation or transformation we can mentally grasp or imagine!
If the very core of the way science and statistical reasoning works (as a device for obtaining knowledge), is analogy and abstract classification of observable phenomena, then the limits of this device should easily be recognized and observed! If something cannot – by its very ontological definition - be analogized to anything we can possibly observe; then it is only reasonable that it cannot be explained by applying this device of obtaining knowledge! So what “explanation” are they asking for?
It‟s the same problem with the so called “big bang” theory! It is a shot at an unachievable aim! We can never prove or even imagine the very first event that brought about matter from nothingness, or that brought about this universe as we see it, from another form of matter the likes of which we have never seen! Why do they so arrogantly insist on putting the process in the cast of something that can be analogized to currently observable and
232
testable phenomena of nature or physics? How can any reasonable man think of the origin of matter itself, to have undergone a process that submits to the very laws that govern the way that matter reacts with itself within this system as it is?
How can I suppose that a car – for example – was created, by means of a method that is analogous to the ways its engine starts, or its wheels run or its doors open? If I were an AI software running inside a computer device, how can I suppose that the computer itself was manufactured not in a factory but in the memory of a bigger computer, as the output of some computer software? This is nonsense! The way a certain system runs, is not the way it was created, and the rules that were set by its creator to control it, do not apply to that creator Himself! You cannot explain the origin of a system by proposing a process that is only part of the way the system itself is made to work! Reason denies this! Nevertheless; this is the kind of “explanation” they so arrogantly seek to “obtain”, and charge believers in the creator with “escaping” the “scientific method” in obtaining it! The scientific method doesn‟t even begin to work in that area! You either come up with some pathetic analogy between a currently observable phenomenon of nature, and the way nature itself came to be, making that an “explanation” for the origins of the universe (Abiogenesis: analogy to a bang – Evolution: analogy to certain observable biological processes), or you have nothing at all, and whatever you say is not plausible and not satisfactory!
My argument here goes far deeper than the “cat and mouse” game that Christian “creationists” play with “evolutionists”! It‟s a question of the purpose of knowledge examining the very objective of this form of science itself! I‟m not examining the “answer” or “the explanation” here, I‟m questioning the philosophical validity of the fundamental question itself, as a query of science, and the ways atheists believe should lead to answering it! Do not ask me to give you the „scientific‟ answer to a question that is in itself rationally unanswerable or fruitless, or cannot be answered by the tools of science (like the question: How did life originate on Earth), and when I say I can only take knowledge about the origin of life from scripture and ask
233
for no more than I find there; you go charging religion with intolerance to “science”!
Many atheists would automatically respond to any phenomenon that may not at first glance appear to match any known explanation to them, by the attitude of saying: “It must have some rational explanation”. Now, we do not object to the meaning of this statement. Yes of course everything must have a “rational explanation”, regardless of whether or not we can obtain it in the present time. But what exactly is it that they mean by “rational”? You‟d imagine that as scientists, they are open to all possibilities as long as they could be proven by scholarly plausible evidence, be it empirical, historical, or logical (/mathematical)! After all, this is what they claim science is all about, right?! Well, actually they‟re not!
By rational and “scientific”, they only mean causes and phenomena that can be observed or tested empirically, according to their current notion of what natural causes are! Even though they do admit that much of what may today qualify as “supernatural” will tomorrow be “natural”, they would so easily dismiss any claims of a metaphysical agent, whatever that agent may be, as though there is no way of proving the validity of a certain claim other than direct observation and empirical testing (the scientific method)! They would listen to you, only if your model of an answer sounds “falsifiable” according to Popper‟s principle! Only if it is in the form of something they can perceive, sense and examine empirically!
But is this, (direct observation), the only route to proving the validity of a certain argument or a certain claim? Absolutely not! Direct observation is only one form of evidence! There is also evidence from rational deduction and induction, and there is evidence from reliable historical narration! In fact, the two routes (the rational and the observational) to establishing evidence, are so intertwined in the process of science that one cannot – by any rational means – separate them!
How many men in history had an apple drop on their heads whilst resting under a tree? Hundreds, perhaps even thousands! But only when Newton thought it over and contemplated, a certain rational conclusion struck him;
234
one that turned this apple into evidence! It became evidence for a “physical force” that was then called “gravity”, and is now a granted fact of nature! Could Newton at the time “observe” gravity? Could anybody observe gravity or perhaps bottle it in some container? No! So what was Newton‟s method of proving the existence of a force that affected the apple and pulled it to the ground? It was a rational method! It was a form of rational evidence! This is how Newton proved the existence of “Gravity”! This rational evidence became basis for countless empirical experiments, deductions and accumulation of scientific evidence!
It has always been very clear that there is a universal power of some kind that pulls everything to the ground! This was not Newton‟s “discovery”! It wasn‟t anybody‟s discovery! However, only when somebody with the quantifying mentality of a mathematician, eventually expressed that force in a physical quantity, did it come to be called “Scientific” and “physical”! One would so enthusiastically jump now and explain the universal pull of Earth – and other planets and stars - to everything on its surface as gravity, and say this is the “scientific explanation”!
Now we didn‟t see atheists reject this conclusion by Newton on the grounds that it raised the immediate question of “what is gravity and where does it come from?”! Does this “explanation” tell us anything about the exact nature of this “force” or its actual source? Does it tell us what it‟s made of, or how it really affects things the way it does? No! It is only a name for a physical quantity; a scientific terminology, dubbed as a physical quantity for calculating the magnitude, speed, acceleration, Work, energy, and other observable “effects” of that force that we have always known existed! We have never observed the real nature of that force itself, so our proof of it remains to be no more than a rational proof, and our explanation remains to be nothing but a pragmatic expression of how it affects our lives! From its many quantifiable effects, we can tell it is there; it has to be there!
Now the question is; why do atheists deny an equally – actually far more - rational process that we apply when we say for example that there is by necessity a creator responsible for the existence of the universe and everything inside it? Why do they refuse to call that an “explanation”? We
235
have never seen that creator, neither have they ever seen gravity! We have only seen His observable deeds, just as we have only seen observable effects of gravity! And we can rationally prove that He must be beyond human analogy, and so we cannot seek to learn anything about Him through the methods of science! Now do we have to claim the creator to be a “physical” force working within the bounds of nature, and turn Him into a mathematical quantity, or speak of Him as though He may one day be tested and observed, so that they would view this reasoning as a satisfactory explanation?
Well, you cannot upset their dream of observing everything that can possibly exist, and testing it in a lab! You cannot dare upset their dreams of becoming gods in this universe, and obtaining complete knowledge of everything that could possibly be known! This is why they are so persistent on making the driving force responsible for running natural life; only a bunch of molecules in the nuclei of living cells; namely, DNA! As irrational as it really is, this is the only form of “explanation” they would approve of! This is the only kind of claim that they would call “science”! Why? Because they just “hate” to admit that the creator is out of reach of their test tubes, and will never be submitted to their labs, and will never fall under their dominion! They would contradict one of the basic foundations of human knowledge: (i.e. Deduction through rational evidence), only because they couldn‟t possibly imagine that someday all those tons of PHDs and books written on evolution and Darwinism might be ridiculed and thrown in the trashcan of history!
Yes indeed this is where the problem really is! There are a huge number of influential atheists in scientific academia in the west today, according to whose beliefs and philosophies the meaning of what “Science” is and what “a rational explanation” should be like, is defined! Anybody who wishes to be anything among those people, should offer them only what they would approve of and accept as “scientific”! Anybody who dares challenge the foundations of their philosophies, the fundamental objectives and goals of their lifetime works and publications, is simply doing something that is pretty much like telling any follower of any religion: Your Faith is false; all the way down to the core! This is why whatever that offender may say, and whatever form of evidence he may offer, he will always be ridiculed and so
236
easily dubbed “pseudoscience”! A guaranteed “career killer” for any academic researcher in natural sciences in the west, mind you!
When an archaeologist comes up with the discovery of some “mega-fauna” fossil for example, or an “out of place” artifact, or the so called “Ancient technology and anomalous findings” or a “giant skeleton of a man”, or so forth, he is so easily dismissed as delusional, forger, or “conspiracy theorist” at best! Now I could not care less whether such findings are indeed true or just fabrications! Fossils are actually evidence for nothing at all dealing with the question in hand! But in the light of the currently well known reputation of evolutionists and their fabrication of many fossils of “hominids” from pig teeth and ape remains, one would not dismiss the possibility of any “crime” against human knowledge and scientific honesty from the fathers of the “Church” of evolution!
In fact, one can hardly imagine that a young enthusiastic archaeologist or paleontologist would choose to ridicule himself and destroy his career in scientific academia by claiming to have found a finding that will have him labeled “pseudo-scientist”! Of course, it is possible that he may think of becoming a “creationist hero” of some sort, for those poor Christian biologists who actually think that fossils may help their cause! But the point is, no matter what anybody may find, it is only called “science” if it fits somewhere within the academic mainstream; the current „religion‟ of academia! People do want to get their degrees granted, and “evolve” in their academic careers! This is why “Scientific academia” in the west (especially in Europe) has indeed become a purely atheistic cult, in every sense of the word! It is the shield beyond which that corrupt religious doctrine hides itself today, and preaches its beliefs as “rational” and “scientific”!
This, my respectable reader, is the “Faith” that those people have inherited, lived by and defended – and continue to do so - just as blindly as any follower of any false faith… It is the philosophy according to which they decide what qualifies as “science” or “explanation” and what doesn‟t!
In our experience with answering misconceptions about Islam, we have seen clearly that it is really not because of a misunderstanding of a particular text
237
or a certain ruling that they charge their attacks! It is basically – as I explain thoroughly in volume 2 - because they make judgments on those teachings based on a fundamentally flawed foundation of moral philosophy, hence a corrupt understanding of the problem that this ruling addresses! They look at Islam through thick glasses of false philosophy and corrupt cultural tradition! So easily would they say, for example, this teaching violates “human rights”! Thus, it is a false corrupt teaching! End of story! When we answer to such a delusion as the reader will see, we have to first address what it is exactly that they view as rightful to all men, and according to what wisdom and evidence they defined them as “rights” in the first place, and what exactly it is that they know about this particular thing they claim that Islam deprives “man” from his “right” to do! And at that, we start proving to this denigrator that indeed it is his knowledge that he was brought up on in his society as a cultural norm, and according to which he makes his judgment; that is questionable and evidently corrupt!
This is why in Islam when we respond to misconceptions we do not call those answers “apologetics” (and I seriously lament any translator who may do so!)! Islam is not making “apology” or “defense”! It addresses the way its offenders view life itself; proving to them how wrong a great deal of their commonly accepted norms are, showing them that this is indeed the reason why they may see healthy as sick, wealthy as poor, rational as irrational, right as wrong, beautiful as ugly; and eventually: created as „designoid‟!
Just look at this statement here:
―A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing complexity.‖ (Dawkins, p. 114)
Well, first of all, by what standard of rational examination of the questions in hand, do we view “easy” in this context to mean “irrational”, “shallow”, “poor” or “unscientific”? Yes it is easy, very easy indeed to say that the creator is the first cause for everything that we observe around us, including our very own selves! But does this make it irrational or untrue? Does this
238
make such an argument false? Since when was the simple and clearly easy argument an unwelcome argument only because it‟s “easy”?
Atheists must understand that when we speak of those questions, we are not “seeking alternatives” to “Chance”! Chance is not in the picture at all to begin with! It cannot be there! Chance – according to the meaning that there is no willful purposeful designer - is the exact opposite of order! It cannot generate system; neither can system be ruled or governed by a law that comes from it! Chance – as we elaborated earlier - is the meaning we use to express something that is humanly unexpected or external to the way we would plan things or envision them to be!
When a man throws dice, the numbers that will come out are – to him – random – because quite simply he cannot think of any particular rule by which he could achieve a determinate result or make a prediction of a particular outcome at any level of certainty before he throws them! He doesn‟t know why they gave out those particular values in this particular throw! However, if one day - for the sake of the argument - all physical factors that affect the way the die falls and rolls on the table, where calculated carefully, including the physics of the way a specially designed machine – mimicking the human hand - throws it, all in full detail, then the numbers coming out will not be called random any more, will they? Once you find out the rule; it‟s not random anymore; or at least we could say that the (sample space) of all probable results of a particular throw will be shrunk effectively!
You study the pattern, emerging from a set of causes plenty of which are no longer unknown to you; hence you can make a prediction that is far more likely to be correct! You will then know how to use certain methods to obtain particular results with relative certainty that you once thought unachievable!
The point is: Once you know it; it‟s not “random” anymore!
Chance & Random = You do not know yet!
239
Now when they claim that favorable mutations emerge at random, they are applying the meaning of randomness – which is no more than a description of a certain status of relative human knowledge – to the very system the perfectness and orderliness of which defines the very meaning of natural law and order in our human notion!
How do we know time? Had it not been for the perfectly steady motion in the solar system, could we‟ve ever known time? How do we tell our directions and orientations without the steadiness of star locations in the sky above, and the constant order of magnetic polarity that defines the very way a compass works? How do we know reality? Had it not been for the fact that every time we open our eyes, as we look facing a certain direction we see a logical sequence of progression of events, could we have perceived any meaning for reality? How could we construct our buildings applying mathematics of structure analysis without the ultimate steadiness of the law of gravitation and the constant laws of molecular bonding in building materials? What civilization could we ever create in these modern times, if it were not for the steadiness and perfectness of the natural order of electromagnetism and thermodynamics? How do we know any system of our making is working properly without examining it under orderly laws of this perfect system of nature? How do we “know” any order at all, had it not been for the perfectness of this system itself that we apply for knowing and comprehending?
It is this very system (nature and everything in it, animate and inanimate) the system that gives the word order in our language its very meaning; that they are so blindly trying to plague with their defiance and ignorance, and inject “randomness” somewhere in its midst!
This clearly destroys the very meaning of natural law itself! There has always been a limited man, reasoning through relative analogies (under limits of the nature of his knowledge and perception), trying to discover the wonders of this perfect order around him, as he proceeds reasoning those features of perfect order around him as rigid “laws” that are constant and perfectly stable! Whenever this limited man falls short of discovering the governing rule beyond a particular phenomenon, he calls it “chance” only to
240
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49335
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: What “explanation”…?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 2:30 pm | |
|
express his current incapability, and to propose perhaps a different method of making use of that phenomenon (like probability statistics, or chaos mathematics)! Imperfectness is only in the way by which he sees natural phenomena and attempts to comprehend and model them, not in nature itself! Today he knows little, tomorrow he knows more; it is his knowledge that increases by accumulation, not the orderliness of an already perfect system!
However, this is the philosophy upon which atheism builds its science! Self-contradictory language, blind conception of “explanation” and false application of statistical reasoning!
―Make no mistake now, the very thing that defines order in your life, is not in fact as orderly as you think it may be! It‘s only ―Orderoid‖! There‘s randomness underneath every aspect of it; you just need to read a little more Darwinian literature, and you‘ll be there before you know it!‖
What the author fails to understand – or rather refuses to admit - is that even this very claim that he holds that complexity increased gradually and slowly, is itself in full and sheer contradiction with his understanding as much as with any possible linguistic interpretation of the word “chance”! This is because quite simply, without a previous determinate plan for complexity to increase, and without a specially prepared and preserved medium for that very purpose, and for the process to maintain and proceed as stable as such along those billions of years they speak of (even along a few generations for that matter), no “increase in complexity” could ever take place!
Every single achievement of natural sciences, every single natural law any man has ever discovered or applied in technology and engineering for his welfare, everything around him screams in his face with the word creation, and yet he so blindly tries to push “randomness” into parts of it, only because he cannot understand those parts! And he calls that an “explanation”!
Now let‟s take a closer look at this “slowly increasing complexity” in the Darwinian notion!
241
In the third lecture of the series „Growing up in the universe‟, Dawkins uses a wooden model to explain how the “eye”, according to him, has evolved gradually! Interesting enough, he starts by stating that the first “form” of an eye that ever came about by random mutation, must have been no more than a simple sheet that can only tell light from dark! One then has to wonder, what use is this “eye” really? If he claims it may work in detecting a prey; then this “eye” certainly can‟t help with that! If he claims it may do anything in detecting a predator, then obviously a creature that can only see light and dark, will never identify a predator from a prey from anything at all, and by the time the shadow of a predator is detected by that poor pathetic “eye”, it will obviously be too late to do anything about it!
They claim that the fact that we can still see such an eye in certain species in nature today is evidence to support their story of the evolution of the eye! This is sheer nonsense because obviously this species has always been equipped with everything it needs for survival and it needs no more of an eye than this! But can we – humans – for example, survive as a species for a single generation in the wilderness with such an eye? Every single form of “the eye” - or let‟s better say “the optic organ” - that we observe today in nature exists in perfect accord with the exact function it is supposed to be doing, in perfect accord with its particular place in nature, not a single bit less or more! We‟ve never seen a single life form become extinct (or endangered) because its “eyes” are not sufficient, have we? The perfect equilibrium of all those living species is evidence enough! Now isn‟t it a pity how some people would strive to argue the exact inverse of what every healthy mind can only make out of this perfect balance in this vast variety of perfectly configured life forms on Earth?
Do not believe your eyes folks! You‟re only tempted to see “design” in “designoid” objects! You are all fooled! Time to raise your consciousness!
As I argued in an earlier section: in any given moment in time, if the acquisition of a certain organ or genetic trait is a survival necessity, then any offspring that comes out lacking it will hardly ever reproduce, not to mention deliver a number of generations that could last long enough for a
242
favorable mutation to come along by pure chance, and save whatever remains of that poor “species”!
It is amazing how they fail to realize the rational necessity of there being some determinate pattern that must have always been there to guide the claimed process of evolution, to – at least - guarantee that every time the natural conditions of life in a certain locale (not to mention on a global scale) would change, the desired corresponding genetic change would appear in due time, before the entire system collapses!
Look at the theories they propose for the cause of extinction of the Dinosaur! None of them – if you look deep enough – should allow in any way for natural life to continue on Earth, without the necessity of there being a collective system of balance that shifts and adjusts many parameters of natural life on earth for that particular end: not only the continuity of natural life but even its ongoing „evolution‟!
Genes are – like all other parts of the collective system of nature - blind inanimate molecules that have no awareness of nature, of local ecosystems, of food chains, or even of the very species the properties of which they are made to preserve (they do not “select” anything)! So obviously this necessary code of control cannot come from anything within natural life! All systems of nature, animate and inanimate, are governed by stable laws, and must point – because of the perfect order that binds the entire system together - to a single controller that runs them all simultaneously and harmoniously from outside (the end point of a similar regress to the regress of causes)!
Yet, evolutionists insist on looking at living beings and the way they emerged and survived on Earth, in separate from other systems of order that constitute nature as a whole, and they seek to attribute a collectively balanced system of order to a long line of random events that took place among certain molecules that could not by any means have caused a system to emerge, much less have anything to do with maintaining it! A part of the system is no more than a part of the system, one that is controlled – like all other parts - from outside by the very being from whence comes the
243
definition of the system itself! Darwinism so blindly seeks to dissolve that perfect order and to arbitrarily inject randomness and chance into its delicate joints, only for the sole end of denying the creator! This is the only kind of “explanation” that they would call science! Either it starts off from pathetically blind and empty beginnings, and advances gradually, like a blind human may do with something of his own making in some lab or factory; or it is too “improbable” for them to even consider!
That‟s why I find it quite fair to say that Darwinism in reality doesn‟t remove the creator from the process; the human mind cannot afford to do that; instead, it turns His role in nature into a mere initiator (a random generator) of a long futile journey of blind try and error (namely: Natural selection), or what Dawkins calls “the blind watchmaker”! Praised be His almighty names! No matter how hard they try they will never deny the undeniable! They will never escape a necessary creator!
It is necessary that there be some governing law that would adjust genetic and demographic changes of different species to all natural conditions on Earth, all so that the system survives and flourishes as such, no matter what. How are we supposed to believe that in billions of years of age, every time any change of climatic or natural conditions on Earth in general took place, Darwinian “mechanisms” were always sufficient to keep the process running, and even rising gradually all along the way? How many random major events, in natural life or in nature itself may have easily emerged that would be enough to devastate that unplanned unguided „progress‟ altogether, and destroy natural life entirely, and what effect would a longer span of time have on this “probability”?
It is absolutely amazing that they would still speak of the creator as “improbable”!
It is in fact - applying their notion of “probability” for the sake of the argument – a billion gazillion times more improbable that natural life may have ended up today in this perfectness that we see and live, after such an extremely long journey through the unknown, unplanned, unguided, and basically random progression, than after a single masterful event of
244
purposeful creation! Please revise my discussion of the Boeing 747 example in the first section of this Chapter, and then answer this question: How likely is it that in billions of years of time, not for once did it ever happen that any random event of nature – cosmic, seismic, climatic, nuclear, magnetic, meteoritic, geologic or whatever - was sufficient in magnitude to blow the whole thing off altogether? How likely is it that for billions of years not a single cosmic event that could cause even the slightest shift in any of the values of physical constants beyond the range that allows for life to progress and continue on Earth (thus causing all natural life to fail) ever occurred?
Every time any event at any scale happened anywhere, life always „found‘ a way; it survived and continued amazingly nonetheless, not only so, but even continued to “evolve” globally (according to Darwinism)! Never did it happen that the long awaited “favorable random mutation” that would enable every species to continue its survival “purpose” in accordance with natural changes (at least climatic), failed to emerge “randomly” before the point where the entire system crashes down! And in billions of years, such has always been the case! All this, and they believe “creation” is highly improbable!
It‟s interesting how Dawkins in his lectures emphasizes on the meaning that we are extremely lucky to be here, far more so than we can imagine! Little does he realize that in doing so, he is actually rendering the Darwinian story far more “improbable” – by his own terminology - than the story of creation!
What lesson have we learnt from nature, if not perfectness of balance and overall equilibrium? Did this balance also come about by chance, out of natural selection? This is impossible! The system cannot start without that balance already conditioned for it! Construction of new subsystems balances the decay of old ones; action balances reaction, positive balances negative, the intake of new molecules from the ecosystem balances the release of old molecules into it, death rates – for whatever cause death may be – balance the birth rates, and so on! It‟s a universal constant in all nature, one that keeps natural life from failure! Had there ever been an insufficient amount of Oxygen or Hydrogen – for example - in the atmosphere, at any point in the history of natural life, all life would‟ve failed! What could possibly
245
guarantee – in a universe that has no sustainer or keeper - that this collective universal balance doesn‟t dwindle throughout those billions of years? No matter what changes, cosmic events, or catastrophes may take place at any given moment, the universal balance is always maintained in favor of natural life! In their sickening close-mindedness, Darwinians look at natural life as though it has always been evolving in a test tube, or inside a lab; they cannot realize – or they deliberately neglect - the way the entire universe has to be kept all along history in its favor!
Nowhere in the system could there possibly be any room for “chance” – as opposed to determinate order!
If – again - they wish to speak in terms of probability then let me ask them this: How probable is it, that the system of natural life would remain stable – stable enough not to fail and perish – all along those millions of years, under effect of all hazards, sudden and gradual (unfavorable) changes in the environment, and devastating natural catastrophes of all sorts, with a survival program that is based entirely on the survival and pervasion of favorable mutations that come about by nothing but pure chance (assuming that mutations could ever ADD new organs!)? How likely is it that there would always be a collectively successful process of natural selection that keeps the system intact all the way through, no matter what, when there is no external guiding factors of any sort? And if it ever did happen that the whole thing came apart and life actually perished entirely on earth (which should be quite likely), then how likely is it that it would start all over again, starting from that miserable pool of floating proteins?
So obviously, excessively long spans of time are not helping them with their claim of higher probability for evolution by natural selection the way they think it does! If anything at all, it only makes this mythical scenario of theirs far more “unlikely” and “improbable”! Millions of times more “improbable” than the sudden leap that Dawkins proposed the parable of “mount probable” only in attempt to avoid!
After all, to speak their own language, a single successful act of creation is far more likely (probable) to have started off this perfect system, than
246
a series of millions of perfectly favorable and collectively orchestrated and naturally balanced and synchronized events of chance, that are – according to them – neither controlled, nor guided by anything but the “success” of those who manage to reproduce… !
How “probable” is it that natural life would always – in a collective global scale – keep proceeding up the metaphorical mountain, with no rule at all to guarantee any orderly control of the essential balance between natural life as a whole and the surrounding environment?
To further elaborate the falsity of their rationale of improbability even in the way they apply it, in a world that is free from any previous plan or deliberate conditioning for the sake of natural life (i.e. it just so happened by pure chance that the universe was perfectly prepared for it), it is said that it‟s probable that favorable chance events come along and add to the score of natural life, gradually. Thus I wonder: is it not supposed to be far more probable and commonplace that destructive and devastative chance events would come along to wipe out all natural life and disrupt any accumulation that may have taken place of anything at all? Isn‟t this what we should expect from analogy to other celestial bodies roaming everywhere around us in the outer space? I mean there‟s obviously an infinite number of possible events the least of which not only could exterminate life on Earth, but also leave it without any chance for reappearance! So when they hold that with more time, the probability of more positive chance events would rise, I say that on the other hand, the probability of more negative chance events to take place should also rise, orders of magnitude higher, considering the number of variables included in the process. Thus, as previously argued, it is infinitely improbable that natural life would start to emerge on Earth, and start its evolution, and after some cosmic event wipes it all out, it starts over again! By what sense could they possibly estimate the story of a single act of creation - or any story at all for that matter - to be more improbable than this?
The balance is clearly so sensitive that everything has to be accounted for, in perfect precision! So by what reason are we supposed to accept the injection of “random events” at any point there?
247
Here‟s another challenge to Darwinians: How do you explain the evolution of the so called “Food chain”? It is clear that for a species to be herbivorous is far less dangerous, less tiresome, less energy consuming and much easier in acquiring the prey than being a carnivore! There‟s an economic argument to be made here! Chasing a running prey is obviously much more difficult and energy consuming than feeding from a tree or from grass, and animals all tend – by nature - to reduce their efforts and spend more time in their territories and with their mates! In fact it could be argued that this would give them higher chances of reproducing (which is what natural selection favors)! So why didn‟t natural selection make all species into herbivores?
And without an initially balanced proportion between birth rates and death rates due to the relation between predator and prey, how could any food chain emerge at all, from a previous state where there is none? And if all this doesn‟t mean the necessity of previous initial conditioning and stabilization, then what does it mean?
One of the examples Dawkins used in one of his lectures was the key lock. He said that if nature is the lock, then the species doesn‟t always have to be the key, the perfect key, in order to open it! It may do for some time as half a key! Now I cannot imagine how he could possibly grant such an example any degree of reasonability! He couldn‟t possibly do better, shooting himself in the foot! The lock is either open, or it is closed! Half open is no good for anything, because quite simply, it is not open! Same goes for half closed! A lock either blocks entry – which is what it‟s made for – or it doesn‟t! There‟s no such a thing as a half lock! Equally, a half key is good for nothing! If its job is to open the lock, and it‟s not doing it, then it‟s not the key for this lock! Period!
The purpose of the key is not at all to be achieved by anything but the right key! Same goes for the exact purpose of an eye! Seeing only light and dark is not at all the purpose of the eye as we use it! I really can‟t imagine how Dawkins would bring along the example of the key and the lock to triumph for Darwinism! What was he thinking?
248
Where does any criterion of evaluation come from, according to which natural selection “selects” only what is best and what keeps the system balanced at every single twist or turn, without ever running a risk of having the entire system collapse? Without an agent that is perfectly aware of the implications of breeding this and breeding that, of the essential balance – that has to be kept stable all along - between birth rates and death rates in every species, as part of the entire equilibrium of natural life and food chains, balancing species with each other, and with the resources of nature, water cycles, plantation cycles, environmental conditions and so forth, how is it even remotely possible for such a system to proceed from one lesser state to a more evolved one, not to mention this evolution be the outcome of a long chain of “chance events”?
If it was all a question of random mutations, then they clearly overlook the fact that mutations as we know them, emerge within an already established species; species that did survive long enough to become a species in the first place! I will leave aside for now the fact that never have we witnessed any mutation that “adds” up new data to the DNA of an animal; only loss and damage! Even if we presumed the possibility of a positive mutation, an animal that is born lacking in terms of survival equipment will never live long enough to breed and speciate to begin with, much less have a chance to “evolve” by means of such a mutation! After all, only the right key will open the lock!
If at a certain point in time, survival without an eye was not possible for a certain species that did not have one, then there‟s no way it could evolve into having one! If without an eye this animal cannot survive, then forget about mutations; there will be no chance for it to even breed to begin with! It will not even be capable of identifying its mate!
A key either works or it doesn‟t! Yes it may be broken or unrefined, and it may not be working properly because of that! However it is not a key – by definition and by manufacture – if it cannot open the lock! If it does, then there is no “fitter” key to acquire for the particular purpose of opening the lock! It simply fits! There‟d be no reason for natural selection not to “select”
249
it! So it should not perish, neither should it “evolve” for survival (because it already works as it is)!
If however the lock is changed, then the key has to change correspondingly! Otherwise, it will not fit; it will not work! It has to do that in proper synchronization, because at any given moment of time, if not enough members of the species do fit, then it will perish. This means that with gradual change in the lock, a corresponding gradual change in the key has to take place! This gradation can never happen through random mutations! Random is contrary to pattern, and gradation is a steady pattern; one that is posed by the necessity of continuous equilibrium!
According to the model of natural selection, animals in changing locale conditions (the lock) should start perishing out, as the gap of adaptability between the genetic makeup of the species and the locale where it lives increases, until all by pure chance, a lucky mutation comes along in a lucky individual, and helps it fit!
Now let it be stated clearly that I‟m not denying any observable phenomenon of genetic drift or change that we can currently observe, in micro-biology or anywhere else! I‟m only stating the overwhelmingly obvious: that those are purposeful changes (for adaptation and other purposes) that are governed by strict external laws that have no room whatsoever for “chance”! Every specimen or species that perishes is meant to perish for the sake of – among other purposes – keeping the collective balance and by effect of that very same law; not chance! So there couldn‟t – by any proper stance of reason – be any evidence in genetic adaptation (for example) for the silly scenario of Darwinian evolution!
Evolution means the random emergence of a trait that would turn a species from unfit (failing) to fit (working). Adaptation on the other hand means the genetic changes in a given species from X to Y, to cope with the changes in natural conditions from A to B, in such that while X was only fit with A, Y is only fit with B. Since it is clear that genes have no awareness of the changes in natural conditions; then this process obviously necessitates an external law to which genes are made to respond, kept by a
250
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49335
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: What “explanation”…?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 2:30 pm | |
|
knowledgeable source that runs those synchronous changes within the frame of time that would give the very meaning of adaptation. Without the informed control of timing it is not to be called adaptation! Because if the change happened earlier in the species than the ecological event that should cause it, then it is not its cause, and at that point, the species would move from X to Y still under conditions A, which may render it unfit! So that‟s not adaptation! 19 And on the other hand if the change from X to Y came to pass more than two generations later than the change from A to B, then it‟s too late because such as it is, X is not fit to B (which is the reason why adaptation is necessary), so it will become extinct! End of story! Thus we can see that every time we observe that an adaptive change has taken place, we have to admit the necessity of the synchronization of genetic change; which is the meaning that clearly leaves no room for chance whatsoever!
Now applying the Darwinian conception of probability I can argue that if indeed adaptation only took place by chance (random mutations), then it is supposed to be far more improbable to take place in time than otherwise! But that‟s clearly not what we observe in natural life! Adaptation is a tracking process that happens in nature in almost all living species, so frequently and so perfectly that there can be no doubt in the perfect synchronization of which I speak! How often, on the other hand, do we see a species become extinct due to failure in performing the change before it‟s too late?
So clearly the claim that chance is involved somehow in this intricate process is sheer blindness!
Adaptive genetic changes to a certain species have to be governed by a stable rule that goes in perfect accordance with changes in the natural locale and in all chains of which this particular species is a part! It cannot be escaped! So what‟s the meaning, really, of fighting the windmills in such a pathetic way, all for the sake of placing randomness and chance anywhere within what is clearly the ultimate example of perfectness of order and
-------------------------------------------------
19 This is why the term “pre-adaptation” is a misnomer. Those species that seem to get their genes fitted to condition B when still living in condition A, are by necessity suited to both conditions, otherwise they would perish under effect of condition A before the change to condition B takes place.
251
balance, unmatched by anything that could qualify as „system‟ in human notion?!
It‟s the inclination of a blind heart that hates to admit the clearest fact of all!
Why is Quantum mechanics so incomprehensible and so stupefying? Because it runs in ways that our minds find impossible? Because there‟s chaos down there and things that are not supposed to be happening in order for the world around us to be as steady and orderly as we see it? This is nonsense! It is hard to understand and grasp because it comes at a level of causes that we humans do not yet have the sufficient power of grasping, tracing or predicting, not because there‟s chaos or things that are rationally impossible happening down there! We do not yet know how things run at that level, but this doesn‟t mean that impossible things happen there! Impossible things never happen anywhere; that‟s one of the alphabets of our human reason, and if we‟re going to get it compromised, then we‟d better forget about Quantum physics, mathematics, and science altogether!
The way we currently observe the Quantum world proves – if anything at all – that whatever we may currently view to be chaotic or unpredictable, or does not follow the rules of our logic; is by necessity of reason uniform and steady all the same, and is by necessity of reason not without binding laws that have no room for chance or chaos, quite simply because the way things run „down there‟, determines the way we see the world around us „up here‟, as it is! This is not another world! This is by definition a subsystem in this very system that we observe and live in! So the fact that we are currently incapable of modeling it or dealing with it in any way other than probability; is only a sign for our human limitedness, not the existence of nonsensical elements of randomness and chance underneath this perfectly consistent world that we observe! Have you people learnt nothing at all from your long history with scientific knowledge? No tower could possibly stand on footings made of sponge and toilet paper!
This is the Darwinian case with already existing species that “evolve”!
But what about the point when there were no “species” at all of any kind, except for a bunch of proteins and amino-acids, hanging loose in some lake
252
(the primordial soup)? Is this not the actual point of “origins” that Darwinians seek to answer and prove that the existence of a creator is not necessary for the origination of natural life? I ask, in a pool of aimless molecules, proteins and dead matter, whatever could force those molecules into reacting to become a living thing? Where did the factor that we call “life” itself come from in the equation? I would imagine them reacting – supposing the necessary conditions and binding forces came about by chance – to result in yet another inanimate compound of some sort! But what about “life”! What is it and where does it come from? How did it come to be?
The point I‟m simply making here is that: The problem of how exactly life emerged on Earth is not our problem to solve! We cannot figure it out, and we clearly do not need to! It‟s the purposeful creation of a supreme creator, in an act that cannot be analogized to anything we ever saw in this universe, and the only authority of knowledge that could be accepted on what exactly happened there is the revelation of that creator Himself!
End of story!
The very objective or purpose of this “science” is false! Look at Miller when he attempted at creating life from primary proteins in his lab, attempting what the poor man thought would be a simulation of the way life came to be on Earth! Had this man embraced heavenly wisdom and truth before he did what he did, he would have never designed such a ridiculous experiment for such a blind uninformed purpose! Why? Because he‟d then have a solid scholarly argument against such a purpose for research! But he didn‟t, so what was he thinking really? What was his aim? To perhaps unravel the secret of life and death, and offer eternity to mankind? To obtain the power to bring back the dead and to stop people from dying? Is he so narrow minded that he fails to see what cataclysmic results the mere acquisition of such knowledge to man – supposing for the sake of the argument that this is possible - would yield? Is he so blind that he cannot see how essential for the balance of the universe that life and death remain in perfect collective equilibrium the way it is and how that immortality is clearly not a state of being that could be introduced to any part of this system within which we
253
live? Is he so blind to see the consequences of such a childish approach to science?
Yes, unfortunately he was!
Any man who believes human knowledge cannot be limited, and that mankind will one day obtain “infinite” knowledge, is a blind man! He knows it is limited, he knows it has to be so by pure and simple reason, but he refuses to admit it! He just hates the idea! It is the blindness of arrogance and sickness of the heart! Now am I, by holding such a position, stagnating or sterilizing the “glory” of science? Am I killing the flame or the passion that drives it? When I admit my limits, my very rational limits as a man, hence placing marks on the road of science that tell us which way is the right way to go next, and what goals and objectives are the right ones to claim in science, am I killing the passion or the ambition within scientists that drives them to search? Well if this is indeed the case, then it‟s not my fault that so many scientists have been fueled by wrong ends and ambitions to do what they do, searching for answers in all the wrong places, or seeking answers to questions that are wrong to begin with!
When I design an experiment, I do it for a purpose! I am trying to find an answer to a question! Thus, it is only wise to make sure, before I start pouring funding, resources and time into it, that this purpose in itself is reasonable, rationally achievable and, of course; fruitful and justifiable! We do not obtain the root purpose beneath science from science itself! The claim that for example man descended from hominids, resulted in billions of dollars poured into research labs where scientists aim at proving that an ape may evolve the same form of human rationality! How did this claim come about? The theoretical basis underneath this research: Is it plausible? Is it reasonable enough to take down to the lab and attempt to prove it? What do they expect now? Do they expect that if one day they managed to teach an ape to perhaps recognize a few words of a human language, or imitate some form of a human activity, one way or another, that this would prove that apes may indeed evolve into men, or that they do in fact share ancestral origins with them?
254
This is the problem! I‟m not by any means against designing experiments or asking questions; no sane man could be! I‟m simply against the sheer blindness and irrationality in defining a research query that is false at the very theoretical root of it! And as long as atheists refuse to obtain wisdom from the only source it should be obtained, and as long as they insist on denying the undeniable; they will keep spinning blindly in those closed circles forever!
They would continue to live on this wet dream: If being a god is being omnipotent and omniscient, then why not work for the sake of becoming gods? Why not turn mankind into a race of “gods”? A race of elite beings who know everything and can do anything at all?
I cannot think of a more pathetic mind than one that really fails to realize the rational evidence for the sheer stupidity and impossibility of this image they dream of!
The way “life” emerged on Earth has to be unlike anything we have seen or could ever observe! And to try to figure out the way this event took place by studying certain chemical processes that run in living cells or anywhere else: This is sheer blindness!
The very linguistic meaning of the word “evolution” and “evolve” is clear in describing the process as a process of ongoing change from initially existing life forms, to new life forms! It only tries to follow (animate matter → animate matter) changes… That‟s all we ever saw of natural life actually! So by what right or reason do they claim the ability to address the point where no life forms existed at all, (which was the case before the initial event that got the whole thing started) by means of this very same process of logical inference? How do they attempt to address an event where the change was (inanimate matter → the first animate matter)? Before there was (animate matter) to evolve, there couldn‟t possibly be “evolution”! This is ultimately out of reach of Darwin‟s theory, and any humanly affordable theory for that matter!
255
An enthusiastic evolutionist would then jump at me saying: “But this question has nothing to do with evolutionism or Darwin‟s theory in the first place; it‟s another discipline of natural sciences called Abiogenesis!”!
Well yes that‟s true! But correct me if I‟m wrong; wasn‟t it Darwin who suggested that life began in a ―warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes‖? (Darwin, Francis, ed. 1887. The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. London: John Murray. Volume 3. p. 18) wasn‟t it this suggestion that led to the Miller-Urey experiment and Oparin‟s mythical “Soup”, and became the prevailing thought in this field you mention: the Darwinian explanation of how the first living being – the top of the proclaimed evolutionary ladder – came to be? And more essentially, I ask the Darwinian: Do you not take it for a personal belief, that science could one day simulate the way life emerged on Early Earth? Do you not find the current mainstream belief of Abiogenesis plausible?
So I don‟t care under what discipline of “science” this question goes! It is part of an atheist‟s religion, and it‟s a pathetic myth all the same! A myth that has to be put in its right place (in the trashcan alongside Mary Shelley‟s „Frankenstein‟), once and for all!
Imagine a physicist who wakes up one day in the morning, runs fast to his lab and cries: ―Eureka! Why didn‘t it ever occur to us before? If we could somehow observe or model “nonexistence‖ in nature, and study its physical properties; then we could definitely have some hope in finding a way in the future to transform matter and energy from nonexistence to existence! Perhaps I‘ll find a clue to this somewhere in the curvature of space-time! I don‘t know… It‘s a long way to go for science of course, but somebody has to take the first steps; and it‘s going to be me!‖
He‟s going to waste his lifetime trying to observe or model what we call “nonexistence” as though it were some state of matter like the gaseous state
256
or something! So I ask my sane reader: What would you think of this poor fellow?
Well that‟s exactly what I think of those who seek to create „life‟ in the lab, or obtain (animate from inanimate)!
I wouldn‟t be surprised though that some imaginative physicists out there may read this and say “Hey! Why not?”!
This is what atheism does to a healthy human mind!
Thereby I declare in no uncertain terms that a discipline that seeks to study how inanimate matter turns into animate (namely: how dead matter comes alive) is by all means an atheistic “cult” of pseudoscience! A delusion of science!
Those biochemical reactions that those chemists play with, in their comic attempt to figure out how life came to be, are reactions between chemicals that continue to be there in the bodies of living species directly after they die; the body of a dead animal clearly doesn‟t lose any of them in death, and it‟s not because of this that it dies; so it couldn‟t be more obvious that those chemicals have nothing to do with the actual agent that defines what life is; the departure of which leaves an organism as a mere dead lump of organic matter!
This is why it always remains a black nightmare in the heart of every evolutionist; his realization that this theory he believes in so strongly, works – according to his faith in it - only within the frame of a system that is already started and prepared initially by means of a power that cannot be explained by it! Evolution – by its very meaning - can only take place on species that are already established as species, or on living beings that are already living, in a – by necessity – already balanced system! But what about a time before which there was nothing but inanimate matter? Is this not the point that we really target when we pose the question of the origins of life?
Abiogenesis, then, is nothing but the attempt to fulfill a Darwinian‟s dream!
257
Evolutionists would often say they do not accept the creator for an answer, simply because it is an explanation that in itself “demands a bigger explanation”! They‟d say: “the creator Himself must indeed be far more “complex” than the system he is “proposed” to explain!” 20 But what about the Abiogenetic explanation? What kind of an explanation do you aspire of it to offer?
Miller actually failed to design an experiment that was supposed to prove to the world that life emerged all by chance without any deliberate preparations, medium restrictions, catalysis, or any form of previous design whatsoever! Is this not a fundamental contradiction? He seeks to design something he believes to be un-designed! So what on Earth was he trying to simulate in the lab? He also forgot that he was seeking to simulate the change from inanimate to animate, which is obviously a process that has nothing to do with Chemistry!
So what “explanation” are they speaking of, and what “science” is this?! What are they really after? Are they really seeking the truth, wherever it may be (as clear and easy as it really is) and whatever its source may be, and are willing to accept it as long as its evidence is made clear to them? Or is it just the blind submission to a false philosophy of “science”, whose sole end is to deny the undeniable, and challenge the unchallengeable?
In the end, it all goes down again to the ignorant position of philosophy: “I will only believe in a God if it is something I can test in my lab!” A position that is so arrogant and in deep contradiction with some of the most fundamental rules of human reason and of the very way man obtains knowledge!
------------------------------------------
20 It is by all means false to describe the creator in terms of complexity or simplicity because He is by necessity unlike any creature in the universe! Complexity is how He created things: they are composed of complex parts or elements, each of which is composed of parts, and so on; this is how we study His creation, it is only the human way of examining it, and He is nothing like that! He is not created!
258
Dawkins proceeds in his “Delusion”, and I quote:
―Before Darwin, philosophers such as Hume understood that the improbability of life did not mean it had to be designed, but they couldn't imagine the alternative. After Darwin, we all should feel, deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design‖
(Delusion, p.114)
Now the only actual difference between atheistic philosophies before Darwin, and those that came after Darwin, is the shiny cloak of “science”! Not the idea of evolution itself, it‟s not Darwin‟s invention! It‟s the idea of natural selection and random mutation that moved the debate from the halls of philosophical academia and temple or church halls, to circles of natural science and laboratories! But did Darwin actually prove anything? No, he did not! He only made a proposition that was received so dearly and wholeheartedly by atheists of his time, and was so faithfully turned into a doctrine of „science‟! Darwin managed to offer to natural scientists a theory that whispers in the ear of every contemporary atheist saying: “You‟re right! Your faith in the metaphysical is the truth! There‟s nothing out there! Someone has finally postulated a coherent hypothesis that puts God out of the picture! It is legitimate science now! You can now be proud to be an atheist, and walk with your head high!”
Dawkins knows that neither Darwin nor anybody that followed on his path after him could ever actually prove anything that Darwin proposed to be a refutation of the meaning of creation! So the highest bid he can really put forth here is to say that Darwin‟s ideas made him “suspicious of the very idea of design”, and that Darwin “raised his consciousness”!
Now if you ask me, I would say yes indeed, Darwin‟s theory altered an atheist‟s consciousness! It gravely ravished his sense of reason and language! And unfortunately, for the most of it, this is an irreparable damage! What can any man do to cure a mind that looks at things and believes, strongly, and on no rationally plausible basis whatsoever, that they are simply not the way they appear to be? And if observation – the very core of the scientific method – cannot be trusted, then what is the point in science
259
altogether? What can we possibly do to a man to convince him that this thing underneath his feet, upon which he is standing, is indeed the Earth?
Go ahead professor; be suspicious of whatever you don‟t like! Even the very meaning of truth itself, you will always find philosophers that have refuted it and “delusioned” it, so to speak! Just let your mind “go” and whatever it makes up for you, rest assured that you will find the works of some philosopher somewhere on your bookshelf to back it up for you!
Natural selection as a consciousness ERASER
|
| | | | | | What “explanation”…?! | |
|
مواضيع مماثلة | |
|
| | صلاحيات هذا المنتدى: | لاتستطيع الرد على المواضيع في هذا المنتدى
| |
| |
| |
