Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is that humans are designed to be biased, it’s the nature of the beast, as they say.

You’re biased to believe in God, I’m not. This isn’t a free will choice, either on my part, or on your part, it’s the product of things beyond our conscious control.

From an evolutionary perspective this makes perfect sense, but from an ID perspective it makes no sense at all.

The designer expects me to make a free will choice, but then constrains the very basis upon which I’m expected to make that choice. We don’t have free will in what we choose to believe…we have biases.
A bias would be that which interferes with our open mindedness, our willingness to get out of the cage that keeps our spirit from soaring in the truth.

We have the free will to follow reason, to try and understand the perspectives of other people, to see where they connect with reality, what is out there and what is inside, our and their hopes and fears.

What God does is lead us to revelation. It’s a journey, a struggle, not only to let go, but to persevere, until our soul cries out for Him.
 
looskanal:
The same way that it produced a brain that believes in a myriad other irrational beliefs. The brain isn’t designed to be rational. It’s designed to promote survival. It’s designed to keep the species alive.
So it is an unreliable truth detector.
On it’s own, yes. So we rely on evidence. Otherwise you get people discounting global warming and thinking that the earth is only thousands of years old
 
40.png
Bradskii:
So we rely on evidence.
How does your unreliable truth detector brain know the evidence is not fabricated?
You look at different types of evidence to see if they match. So if the geological evidence and the radiometric evidence and the cosmological evidence are all pretty much in agreement, then you conclude that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Or that there is a Great Conspiracy!

I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
 
Last edited:
You look at different types of evidence to see if they match. So if the geological evidence and the radiometric evidence and the cosmological evidence are all pretty much in agreement, then you conclude that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Or that there is a Great Conspiracy!

I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
Yet unreliable truth detector brains are producing the reasoning other unreliable truth detector brains interested in survival and protecting themselves selfishly are relying on.
 
40.png
Bradskii:
You look at different types of evidence to see if they match. So if the geological evidence and the radiometric evidence and the cosmological evidence are all pretty much in agreement, then you conclude that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Or that there is a Great Conspiracy!

I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
Yet unreliable truth detector brains are producing the reasoning other unreliable truth detector brains interested in survival and protecting themselves selfishly are relying on.
No. Maybe you don’t understand the process. People produce evidence. They may be charlatans. Other people produce different evidence that ties in with the first. I guess both could be charlatans but the chances are slim.

Then a third group produces yet more evidence of a different type and THAT ties in with the others.

If this is difficult to understand, then think of ID. And it’s exactly NOT like that.

The choices are then to accept what’s been presented or decide that all scientists working in different areas of science in all parts of the world in different times, all with different political and religious views are all somehow members of a secret cabal determined to…um…well, I’m not sure what they’re trying to do. You’re the local Conspiricist around here. You tell me.
 
Last edited:

Giving Up Darwin​

The religion is all on the other side. Meyer and other proponents of I.D. are the dispassionate intellectuals making orderly scientific arguments. Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one.

In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is— so far —a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.

“Research on animal development and macroevolution over the last thirty years—research done from within the neo-Darwinian framework—has shown that the neo-Darwinian explanation for the origin of new body plans is overwhelmingly likely to be false—and for reasons that Darwin himself would have understood.”

 
Last edited:
Evolution…you can’t escape it. It’s inevitable.
  1. Tell that to the animal and plant breeders who for thousands of years have tried every trick in the book to alter creatures. None of them managed to produce a organism that was much different to what they started with - eg, lots of different breeds of dogs came from a wolf, but they’re all still dogs and the original wolf can still inter-breed with the breeds that descended from it. Where’s the evolution?
  2. Which law of science say evolution is inevitable?
  3. Belief in evolution … it’s inevitable … for an atheist.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who says “Political correctness is killing America” would get my vote. The new President of Brazil would get my vote too - he’s like a Latin-America Trumpster.
 
40.png
Techno2000:
God doesn’t need to use evolution.
God uses it more than anyone else, for it’s Him and Him alone who’ll decide the most important distinction of all, who’s saved, and who isn’t. That is indeed the ultimate in survival of the fittest. We may disagree about the mechanism by which the future of mankind will be decided, but either way, it’ll still be survival of the fittest.
Did God have to use evolution to make the fish, loaves and wine… pop into existence ?
 
Last edited:
Ah, don’t forget about your seditious cousins in America! We too are descendants of hardened and, in our case, ungrateful criminals. 😉
 
Wow this is already a long thread to jump into.

Anyway, Pope Benedict XVI, I think, said that evolution and Genesis can co-exist. Time is a literary device of the writers of Genesis. A day in Genesis is not a day in our time. It’s even pointed out that day and night cycle didn’t exist until the 3rd day.

Don’t take the time in Genesis or tracking the age of the world through Jesus’s genealogy seriously.
 
To understand and question another person’s perspective is one thing, but a person doesn’t have free will until they can honestly and forthrightly question their own.

Everyone claims to have done just that, but there’s a difference between questioning one’s beliefs, and merely searching for the means to justify them.

So I’m asking why you believe what you believe, and you can’t honestly answer that question until you can understand why the other person believes what they believe. Not how they justify those beliefs, but how they came to believe them in the first place.

Why do you believe…indeed why does anyone believe?
Questioning another’s understandings is how we can establish a dialogue, to share ourselves, as we come to know and love another more fully. It happens more face to face, rather than through detached interactions such as we find here, where as you say, we are likely to come to justify our beliefs.

I agree that, in search of the truth, we must question ourselves as to how we “know” what we “know”.

A journey that constitutes a lifetime cannot be summarized to fit into this format. Suffice to say that the outcome is a fundamental truth, which lies at the heart of my understandings - the reality of my personal existence, and its relationship with Existence itself, to which words can only point.

We can describe the nature of Existence as being relational, triune. As an image of our Source, we exist as persons-in-the-world, a connectedness of a particular kind of individual being, with what is other to it. Relationality is manifest throughout creation, where we find different forms of being expressing the particular ways in which they interact and combine in the formation of ontologically greater systems, which then demonstrate novel kinds of relatedness. As persons, regardless of our genetic make up, psychological as well as physical characterisics, and whatever blessings have been bestowed upon us, we are as individual expressions of mankind, now broken, and ultimately one in the communion of self and other that occurs when we give of ourselves, when we love, in other words. There is nothing more real, nothing of greater and lasting value. In these moments, we connect with that Perfect Relationality that is divine and eternal, from which all creation springs, here and now, as it was when, for the purposes of this thread, the first of every individual entity came to be as an expression of what they are. Creation is true, here and now and everywhere and at every time, each form of being in its moment.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top