In an online discussion I was asked to provide the answers to these questions:
How do new species appear on Earth?
Why design cancer?
Were tapeworms on the Ark?
Before elucidating the biblical answers to these questions, sometimes it helps to highlight the contrast between what those who believe in evolution teach and those who believe the Bible.
For the evolutionist, they believe that at one time LUCA did not have the genetic code necessary to form legs, wings, lungs, feathers or teeth. So, to get those traits, random mutations had to accumulate over billions of years. It’s never been observed, but all of evolutionary biology is built upon this mysterious unobserved assumption. As Dr. Michael Behe notes from the longest-running evolutionary experiment to date: “After 50,000 generations of the most detailed, definitive evolution experiment ever conducted, after so much improvement of the growth rate that descendent cells leave revived ancestors in the dust, after relentless mutation and selection, it’s very likely that all of the identified beneficial mutations worked by degrading or outright breaking the respective ancestor genes.”
Darwin Devolves – Dr. Michael Behe p179
So although never observed and is not realistically possible, evolutionists assume a “bottom-up” path from extremely limited variability within genetic code to variability-rich genetic code (humans, octopus, bats…). In this worldview, there’s no reasonable place for morals, justice, sadness, or evil. As Dawkins said of a materialistic universe: “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
Conversely, Christians, who consistently trust what God revealed about creation in the Bible, accept that God created everything “very good” with no death or suffering or thorns.
It was only after the sin of mankind that the curse of sin brought all of creation into a state of fallenness
With this foundation we can now address the questions stated from the beginning of this post:
“How do new species appear on Earth?”
From Genesis 1, we see that God created distinct kinds of creatures that reproduce only with each other. From that we can infer that all of the genetic variability for that kind was pre-loaded into the original kinds. You might be tempted to respond with the common retort “A kind is not a scientific term. What is a kind?” This is not a problem since the Bible is not intended to be a science textbook with hierarchical categories. But it’s very likely that a kind could be reasonably synonymous with the Order or Family. So, in stark contrast to the evolutionary story, which is a bottom-up view, the biblical worldview is a top-down. One of the easiest ways to see this in action is the variability that has expressed itself in canids. From wolves only a few hundred years ago, we now have hundreds of distinct breeds. This variability has been present in wolves this whole time, but it wasn’t until artificial selection that we have been able to see all of the wonderful creativity that the Creator imbued into his creation. A limited example is shown below in dog breeds with hair length
Speciation is the result of a LOSS or splintering of the genetic information that was originally programmed into the kinds by the Creator.
Another example would be the equine kind. While modern classifications identify horses, donkeys, and zebras as different species, they are clearly of the same kind because they can interbreed. There’s great variability within the kind, but the zebras have lost much of the variation of horse through both natural and artificial selection.
To summarize on question 1, evolutionists (contrary to the evidence) assume that the information stored in genetic code has been accidentally aggregated by natural selection acting on random mutations. It takes billions of years to accumulate enough variability to view the categories that we now call species. Bottom up.
Biblical creationists accept the revelation of God that He programmed the information stored in genetic code was purposefully imbued into the kinds. In a short time, information is observed to be lost and splintered into what we now designate as species. Top down.
Why design cancer?
God did not design cancer as part of the pre-fall creation. When the created order fell under the curse of sin because mankind’s rebellion, mutations and disease became part of the “creation in bondage to decay”. Like death and thorns, the suffering that comes along with cancer only entered creation because of the sin of Adam. God promised to bring an end to the curses of sin and restore order to creation. Isaiah 11 and Revelation 21-22
Were tapeworms on the Ark?
This question is similar to the question about cancer. The inference that we get from God’s declaration of an originally “very good” creation is that creatures, which now exhibit parasitic behavior, did not hurt prior to the fall. God declared that creatures changed after the flood (Genesis 9:2) and a consistent inference from the scripture is that like humans do in rebellion, many creatures rebel against their originally created order to cause sickness & disease.
“The mind is a terrible thing to waste” – Frederick Douglass Patterson
“… a mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone, if it is to keep its edge.” – G. Martin
“I will not let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet.” – Gandhi
“The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.” – Plutarch
“Mind over matter” – Unknown
“I must have a prodigious amount of mind; it takes me as much as a week, sometimes, to make it up!” – Mark Twain
Minds are indeed amazing! But how did we, as humans, get our minds? From where do minds arise? Did God give us minds in order to praise Him, contemplate/discover the mysteries of his creation, and be creative…or did the natural forces of evolution cobble together particles such that these particles could comprehend the cosmos and even itself?
After posting these “Can Evolution Explain…articles, I inevitably hear evolutionists respond with some form of: “get your paper peer-reviewed and only then can you get your Nobel Prize for disproving evolution. Until then STFU!”
To be clear, these “Can Evolution Explain…” articles are NOT intended to disprove evolution. They are simply meant to analyze the assertions of evolutionists to see whether the subject matter is actually evidence for evolution by their own standards. It’s an internal critique. What I find in all of these articles is that what’s been proclaimed as “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution is really just story-telling and assumptions. We’ll see if Dennett’s book is more of the same bluster or actual evidence.
Another objection that I anticipate from the faithful evolutionists is “Dennett is a philosopher…not a scientist. If you want to prove creationism, you need to address the scholarly works.” I refer you to the last paragraph AND Dennett cites the latest of the scientific works that address this topic. AND Dennett’s own Wikipedia page calls him a “cognitive scientist”. There will be no shortage of “papers” that the devout evolutionists will propose that I must analyze. I don’t have the time or the desire to expose EVERY single article, but I do analyze the top authors and the articles that evolutionists THINK is actually evidence as shown above. Hopefully, given the example of my analysis, other Christians will be motivated to expose how the “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution are really massive canyons. These articles are not intended to prove creationism or anything else. They are meant to push back against the dominant paradigm rather than just blindly accepting what is being taught. If these works of evolution can survive scrutiny, then so be it, but so far, I’m finding that their claims are impotent.
Let’s see if the powers of evolutioncan explain the origins of mind. In objections to some of my previous articles, some skeptics have erroneously claimed that I did not review the most eminent authorities on the subjects, but what will they say of Daniel Dennett? From the Wikipedia article, Dr. Dennett “is an American philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist whose research centers on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science.” In 2017 he wrote “From Bacteria to Bach and Back – The Evolution of Minds” which is his case for how evolution can produce minds. I’ll review this book below to see if the case for evolution being able to explain minds is in fact airtight
Here’s how this works: I will post the quotes from the book in red and then just below the quote, I’ll post my analysis in the default black font. I have added bold to key words from Dennett throughout, so this is just a note to say that the bold does not appear in the original work.
How come there are minds? And how is it possible for minds to ask and answer this question? The short answer is that minds evolved and created thinking tools that eventually enabled minds to know how minds evolved, and even to know how these tools enabled them to know what minds are.
It is a difficult question for naturalists to answer. If the cosmos were just a collection of particles, then by what mechanism or principle do aggregated particles perceive themselves or something outside themselves? Perhaps Dennett will explain more than just his wild assertion: “eVolUtiOn dUn iT!” as the book progresses.
p7
Then an amazing thing happened: two different prokaryotes…collided. Collisions of this sort presumably happened countless numbers of times, but on (at least) one occasion, one cell engulfed the other, and instead of destroying the other and using the parts as fuel or building materials…it let is go on living, and, by dumb luck, found itself fitter
An amazing thing as Dennett put it is a synonym for magic. God-deniers think that it’s a pejorative to attribute God’s amazing works in creation to magic, but they too require unexplainable magic/miracles for their view. I highlighted the word “presumably” above and throughout the book we see this words and its synonyms ubiquitously. The evolutionists have no evidence for their view that nature can produce life or multi-cellular life or consciousness or minds or morality but since all of these things exist now, they are FORCED to assume that nature somehow “presumably” did it. Need I even make a comment about Dennett’s use of the phrase “by dumb luck” in his comprehensive book explaining how evolution produced minds?
Also on pg7
We read almost every day of Google or Amazon or General Motors gobbling up some little start-up company…but the original exploitation of this tactic gave evolution its first great boost
There are three items in this short paragraph worth discussing because Dennett makes use of these fallacies throughout his book:
Dennett recognizes how intelligent entities (Google, Amazon, GM) make decisions based on foresight, purpose, and profit. The processes of evolution have access to NONE of these tools. Dennett’s use of applying intelligent agency and intelligent design as if evolution can do the same things, is a fallacy that persists throughout his book
Tactic: “A plan or action for achieving a goal; a maneuver.” – American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. The processes of evolution does not plan, has no goals, and has no purpose. Yet throughout his book Dennett imbues evolution with these powers. It’s a shame that a philosopher of his caliber would lazily write his book on the powers of evolution using such specious reasoning
Reification Fallacy: “a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.” Another of Dennett’s common fallacies is his ubiquitous use of the reification fallacy. He gives the abstract concept of evolution anthropomorphous and sometimes divine powers. This fallacy appears so often in his book that during my reading & annotating, I started writing an RF with a circle around it to denote the prevailing use of the reification fallacy
If at this point, you’ve run out of time and cannot read this tome of a post, you’ve got the substance of Dennett’s book. Nowhere is Dennett able to provide evidence for or verification of Evolution’s ability to produce minds. While his book is well-written and Dennett is both well-read and a skillful writer, his book fell drastically short of his intended purpose. But there’s plenty more review if you have the stamina.
“Over time these eukaryotes grew much larger, more complex, more competent, better.”
What mechanism increases size, complexity and competence? Dennett leaves the answers to these questions to the imagination and the ambiguous nature of the word “evolve”
So, it is claimed, evolution cannot get started without a helping hand from an Intelligent Designer. This is a defective argument, a combination of misdirection and a failure of imagination as we shall see.
For Dennett to rely on imagination for evolution to create minds rather than evidence, lets us know right away that he will wish his views into existence throughout.
In a highly influential essay, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin (1979) coined the phrase “Panglossian paradigm” as a deliberately abusive term for the brand of biology-adaptationism-that relies on the methodological principle of assuming, until proven otherwise, that all parts of an organism are good for something.
This concept is completely at odds with one of the primary assumptions of materialism: purposelessness. How can purposelessness produce “good for something” (purpose) let alone ALL parts of an organism being good for something? It’s essentially, “assume nature did it unless proven otherwise.” This is a core doctrine of naturalism.
P31 was a particularly juicy use of fallacies, incompatible ideas, and guesses
I went into this book looking for evidence of the evolution of minds. What I found between the covers was Dennett’s temporal subjective opinion, fallacies, and imaginations of evolutionary powers. No evidence was forthcoming
The space of reasons is bound by norms, by mutual recognition of how things ought to go-the right way, not the wrong way, to play the reason-giving game.
God-deniers have a penchant for stealing moral language from Christians although their worldview cannot account for them. How do you know what is “right”? What is the “wrong way”? How do you get an “ought” from what is? “Norms”?!?!?? How did an amoral purposeless blind pitiless indifferent cosmos produce “norms”?
P43
Nature has endowed us with…
This is isn’t just the reification fallacy, this is the divination fallacy. Dennett gives nature divine powers several times throughout the book.
Some of you may think I’m making this stuff up at this point, which is why I’m sprinkling in a few screenshots of his book
On pg 48 Dennett employs the imagination-of-the-gaps in an effort to build his case for the evolution of minds, and on page 49, he invokes the phrases “dumb luck” , “just lucky” and “lucky-to-be-gifted” in place of scientific evidence for his case.
On p55 Dennett introduces his readers to the Turing machine. He talks knowledgably about Alan Turing’s computer, which deciphered the German code, developed during WW2. Turing’s machine had no comprehension of the code that was developed, so Dennett felt it reasonable to apply this concept to biology. He writes on pg 57
What Darwin and Turing did was envisage the most extreme version of this point: all the brilliance and comprehension in the world arises ultimately out of uncomprehending competences compounded over time into ever more competent-and hence comprehending-systems.
It’s an embarrassing conflation for Dennett. He’s essentially claiming that because Turing could intelligently design & engineer uncomprehending machines, then nature can too. All Dennett is doing is building up the overwhelming case for intelligent design. Unfortunately, for Dennett, he builds his case on the Turing machine and references throughout the rest of the book how nature just does whatever intelligent designers do…just without the intelligence. It’s lazy and an unjustified attribution to nature.
Another unfortunate (for evolutionists) analogy the Dennett proposes is the way that elevators can travel from the bottom floors to the top without comprehension, so nature can uncomprehendingly grow in complexity. Again, he builds his case on intelligently designed machines. This whole time, I thought he was going to describe how purposeless, unguided forces could construct reasoning minds from numerous successive slight modifications, but Dennett continually invokes intelligence as the source. And he rationalizes this writing by just adding in the disclaimer (p52) “their excellent designs are not products of an intelligent designer” as if his disclaimer carries weight.
p74 is filled with more equivocation of intelligently designed tools with natural forces. Dennett compares the programming of artificial intelligence, the accumulation of knowledge in encyclopedias, and the internet to things that he feels that nature can do although he offers no actual evidence for these assertions…just empty comparisons.
On the following page, Dennett invokes the sciency-sounding phrase: “emergent effect” rather than providing evidence of the evolution of minds. You may have heard evolutionists and naturalists employ “emergent properties” or “emergent effect” when trying to explain logic, or life, or consciousness, or minds, or morality with the dismissive quip: “Well, an aggregation of sand particles produces sand dunes, so an aggregation of stardust produces minds”. It’s a monumental and illogical leap, but they present it as if it’s factual. Don’t let their bluster distract from the fact that there is no evidence for particles producing minds. Dennett would have been more persuasive in his case had he demonstrated step-by-step how natural selection acting on random mutations (actual evolution) could have produced minds rather than relying on intelligent design analogies
Could something as intellectually sophisticated as a digital computer, for instance, ever evolve by bottom-up natural selection?
A consistent evolutionist must believe Yes as the answer to that question. They believe that humans are the result of natural selection, so the ultimate source of computers, smart phones, and all technology was ultimately brought about by natural selection.
If an evolutionist is inconsistent and like Dennett, dismisses the idea outright, that natural selection can produce something as intellectually sophisticated as a computer, they are being ignorant of the fact that the simplest biological cell is far more sophisticated than a computer.
Lastly, natural selection is a destructive force. Natural selection never produces anything. It can only thin the population of the unfit. Several times throughout the book, Dennett incorrectly describes natural selection as some sort of creative force.
It’s not just the reification fallacy – Dennett give deification powers to nature as he uses words like “gifted…bestowed…blessed.” Naturalism literally uses religious worship language when talking about nature. He capitalizes Nature several times in his book. Paul’s letter to the Roman church couldn’t be anymore prescient than when he wrote “claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling moral man and birds and animals and creeping things…they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.”
P98-99
Next come the Skinnerian creatures, who have, in addition to their hard-wired dispositions, the key disposition to adjust their behavior in reaction to ‘reinforcements’; they more or less randomly generate new behaviors to test the in the world…The merely Darwinian creature is ‘hard-wired‘, the beneficiary of clever designs it has no need to understand…it has been designed by evolution…learns by trial-and-error…and is hard-wired to favor forays that have ‘reinforcing’ outcomes. It doesn’t have to understand why it prefers these trial-and-error behaviors when it does; it is the beneficiary of this simple design-improvement ratchet
Notice all of the ‘design’ words from above. It sounds like a computer manual. Dennett gives nature the power to design with a wave of his pen. These creatures just “have” foundationally necessary features?!?!? Where did they get them? Where did these “hard-wired dispositions” come from? He never explains, but he builds on these unjustified foundations. I expected more evidence and fewer unjustified assumptions, but Dennett’s assertion game is strong!
Interestingly, Dennett’s chapter 6 is titled “What is Information?” The absolutely weakest link in the evolutionary chain garners a whole chapter that reinforces the theory of intelligent design. Dennett refers to DNA, JPEG digital photo compression technology, exquisite paintings, Mathematical modeling, economic analysis, poker, & empiricism, but you’ll notice that the key element to all of these is intelligence…not unguided numerous successive slight modifications. If nature could produce design without a Designer, why did he use intelligent design analogies as his foundation?
But ch6 is an important chapter for Dennett as he tries to build a key concept in his theory, Memes, as abstract progenitors of information. Dennett doesn’t tie information to memes until chapter 10, but it’s important to see how he recognizes the foundational nature of information…even though he is never able to hide the fact that information always comes from minds and (even though he never says it) from the eternal Mind. Dennett defines a meme from the Oxford English Dictionary as “an element of culture that may be considered to be passed on by non-genetic means.”
As noted earlier, <reification fallacy next> evolution by natural selection is astonishingly good at finding needles in haystacks, almost invisible patterns that, when adventitiously responded to, yield a benefit to the responder. Just as the origin of life depends on getting the right “feedstock” molecules in the right place at the right time, there has to be raw material in the variation in the population that includes, by coincidence) some heretofore functionless (or underutilized or redundant or vestigial) feature that happens to be heritable and that covaries with the potentially useful information in the world.
You can see above that Dennett both reifies natural selection and then grants power to that abstract concept that it outside the scope of its supposed abilities. We’ve been told that natural selection can preserve that which assists in reproductive fitness and culls organisms without the fittest traits. But Dennett claims that natural selection can preserve “potentially useful information” as if there is somehow foresight and planning for future use of this potential information. And he does it again on the very next page: 121
Natural selection cannot preserve traits that have no effect on reproductive fitness.
This may be the most important question that Dennett asks in the whole book. Sadly, his answer is sorely lacking:
Evolution is all about turning bugs into features, turning noise into signal and the fuzzy boundaries between these categories are not optional; the opportunistic open-endedness of natural selection depends on them. This is in fact the key to Darwin’s strange inversion of reasoning: creationists ask, rhetorically, “where does all the information in the DNA come from?” and Darwin’s answer is simple: it comes from the gradual, purposeless, nonmiraculous transformation of noise into signal, over billions of years.
It makes a cool bumper sticker for someone to claim that evolution can turn bugs into features, but the knowledge claims of empiricism is a bug, not a feature. Several things to note about this paragraph:
If it were true that minds could be constructed by natural selection acting on numerous successive slight modifications (random mutations), there would be evidence and Dennett would have demonstrated this evidence. But he never does. The book is empty of demonstrable evidence. It has only just-so-stories with reification fallacies and assumptions built on intelligent design analogies
Charles Darwin did not have an answer for information or genes of DNA because he lives in a time before the discoveries of genetic information.
Perhaps Dennett intended to speak for the all Darwinists when he claimed “Darwin’s answer”. Gradual keystrokes cannot be preserved by natural selection since the accumulated code would be too slow. Purposeless keystrokes could not be preserved because they do not create functional code, and functionless code cannot be preserved. The assertion that gradual, purposeless keystrokes can create instruction code that has greater complexity than mobile phone operating systems is both undemonstrable and unreasonable.
P125-126
Even the loss of organs and their functions counts as improvement when the cost of maintaining them is factored in. The famous cave fish that have abandoned vision are engaged in cost cutting, which any company executive will tell you is design improvement.
But that’s not what we’re here for. We’re here to hear Dennett herald the powers of evolution to produce NEW traits…specifically the mind. Sure, continual losses of information, organs, and functionality can count as “improvement” in the same way that taking the doors off, stripping out the air conditioning system and removing all of the seats in a car will improve gas mileage. But you can’t get from an automobile to a starship will continual losses. You can’t get from bacteria to Bach with loss after loss after loss. Dennett is supposed to be explaining the opposite of loss. Where’s the evidence for the massive gains of information that would permit a bacteria to produce beautiful music????
Chapter 7 had some interesting figures regarding “Darwinian Spaces”. There’s no evidence presented, but it does help to see the way that evolutionists think
P149
There is much more to be explored in this evolution of cultural evolution and its role in creating our minds, but first we should look more closely at how it got started. Like the origin of life, this is an unsolved problem, and a very difficult one.
This is a stunning admission from the man who was supposed to be telling us how minds evolved. Like the origin of life problem for naturalists, the evolution of minds is an unsolved and very difficult problem. I agree, and there is a vast list of problems for which naturalism has no answers.
P151-153
An oviparous fish has not time for swimming lessons in it youth and has no parents to teach it; it has to have a swimming “instinct” built in…One way or another, brains develop competences…The glory of programming language is that once you get your design clearly written in the language of choice-Java or C++ or Python-you can count on the compiler program to take it from there, creating a file in machine language that can be executed. Computer programming is thus not so much top-down design as top-halfway-down design; the grubby details of the “bottom” of the design (the engine room if you like) is something you can ignore, unless the program you are writing is a new compiler.
Exactly. The information has to come from somewhere. Dennett never does demonstrate the origin of the built in instincts of the oviparous fish, but he knows that this information is needed, so he assumes nature must have done it sometime in the past and then preserved it.
I couldn’t help adding Dennett’s continual use of intelligent design as an analogy for evolution. Even compilers were written by intelligent programmers. There’s just no evidence for him to draw from in his attempt to build a case for evolution producing minds, so he gives the analogy of intelligent computer programmers working hard writing thousands of lines of code, and just expects his readers to imagine evolution doing the same thing…just without intelligence. It’s dreadful science, but it’s humorous reading
P164-165
Top-down intelligent designs depend on foresight, which evolution utterly lacks…Foresightless, backward-“looking” evolution by natural selection is not intelligent design but still powerful R&D, sufficiently discerning so that the general division of labor in the brain can be laid down in the genetic recipes that have been accumulated and refined over the billion years or so of mobile life.
True, evolution lacks foresight. But he goes from something that is true, right into the reification fallacy by attributing discernment to the abstract concept of evolution. This is a common theme in Dennett’s work.
P195-200
Perhaps…Perhaps…might…might be…somehow…perhaps…perhaps…it is possible…perhaps…in any case…probably…Almost certainly…we can imagine…may be…perhaps…probably…probably…possible
You may have thought you were reading a science book where Dennett will show demonstrations of his claims, but you can see from the caveats, it’s not really very compelling. It’s just “maybe/perhaps” all the way down
Microsoft Bing AI-generated art
P239
“Genetic evolution (“instincts”) can’t operate fast enough to do the job, leaving a yawning gap to be filled by memetics”
According to Bickerton, “The cognitive gap between humans and nonhuman animals is evolution’s Achilles heel” (p.5), and it cannot be explained, in his opinion, by any account of the straightforward natural selection of increasingly powerful communication behaviors leading eventually to language…this is reminiscent of the familiar creationist arguments that until the eye, say, or the wing, or the bacterial flagellum is fully designed it is useless and hence will not be sustained over generations, a you-can’t-get-here-from-there challenge to the evolutionist. But Bickerton is no creationist…he provides his solution to the “paradox of cognition” (p.79) “If we rule out selective processes and magical versions of evolution, what’s left? The answer is just two things: words and their neural consequences. The invention-for it can only have been an invention albeit it not a conscious or even an intentional one-of symbolic units had crucial consequences for the brain.” I relish the irony of the passage, with its dichotomy between evolution and invention, and its postulation of an unconscious Promethean leap of creativity”
Both Derek Bickerton (in his book “More Than Nature Needs: Language, Mind, and Evolution”) and Dennett recognize the unfathomably massive gap in reasoning/cognition between animals and humans for which evolution must account. They strip away the things they see won’t work: natural selection, and have to propose something for which the purposeless universe is incapable: purposeful invention.
Regarding this same paragraph, notice Dennett’s use of the phrase “Promethean leap“. This is in reference to the Greek mythology of the god of fire, Prometheus, defying the Olympian gods by stealing fire from them and bestowing it to man. This provided a huge leap in technological advancement for humanity for which humanity (according to Greek mythology) could not possibly have solved on their own. Just 11 pages prior, Dennett admits that the evidence for the evolution of minds could not have been preserved in the fossil record (and I agree), so to solve the paradox, he must speculate a giant leap forward…a miracle of invention. But he cannot call it a miracle. He must just call it irony and a dichotomy…a paradox and a Promethean leap. It’s reminiscent of the problem that paleontologists encountered when searching for missing transitional fossils that would confirm evolution. Since those fossils were completely missing, they proposed a rescue device called Punctuated Equilibrium, which asserts that evolution goes through cycles of short periods of “lightning fast” change, which don’t get preserved in the fossil record – and all of the confirming fossils just didn’t get preserved, because evolution happened too fast. The evidence for evolution remains missing, but it is (they claim) really just more evidence for evolution, because it’s got a sciency-sounding moniker: punctuated equilibrium. Don’t fall for the bluster of fancy monikers.
On P264 Dennett continues this discussion with Bickerton’s book where he says “must-have…probably…must have…Somehow” leading to the hinge point of this review and the final death-knell admission for Dennett’s case on p265. I had to include a screenshot of the page, because you might not believe me if you don’t see it with your own eyes:
It is indeed a dilemma, but more than that, as Dennett admits, his foundation for the origin of humans minds (language) is still an “unsolved problem”, and the proposed solutions have been and continue to be “just-so stories”.
When I read this paragraph above, I literally laughed out loud. Did you catch what he said? “We are getting confidently more uncertain” and Dennett says of this confident uncertainty: it’s “an embarrassment of riches” for researchers to find a solution. It would be comedy at its finest if Dennett didn’t believe that knowing nothing is an embarrassment of riches. It is an embarrassment for them, but there are no riches; it’s the-emperor-has-no-clothes of evolutionary evidence. What else need be said? The case is closed. Evolution cannot solve the unsolvable.
One final screenshot to reinforce Dennett’s misuse of language and understanding of evolution. On P339, he again reifies evolution as if it has special powers:
But as we all know, natural selection is a culling force. It destroys the information of the unfit, and this descriptive ‘force” has no inherent creative powers to generate anything.
There are many more pages that could have been included in this review, but none of them solve the evolutionist’s problem. The case presented by the leading evolutionary philosopher, while entertaining & including the latest scientific searching, included grand story-telling but no evidence.
Evolution is false because it is in conflict with God’s eternal Word. And as we have seen, from even their top word-smiths, evolution cannot account for minds or anything else in reality BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS.
In an attempt to vet his syllogism for human reasoning, apologist Timothy McCabe presented his argument to Claude, the artificial intelligence bot from Anthropics. The argument from McCabe is as follows:
Premise 1 – If premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason.
Premise 2 – If there is no god, all initial human premises about the external world begin to exist without reason.
Conclusion – Therefore, if there is no god, all human conclusions about the external world are also without reason.
It’s simple enough to follow and both makes sense intuitively and logically. McCabe asked the AI bot, Claude what it thought of the premise. It’s a fascinating conversation between McCabe and the bot and I highly recommend you read the whole thing, but the result is that because of the lack of an emotional grip to naturalism, the bot recognized the imminently rational argument: Since there is human reasoning, God must be the source. Here’s the final response from the Claude AI bot (bold not present in original):
Upon examining your line of reasoning further, I am compelled to agree that some form of divine rational agency does appear to be the only viable justification for holding that the external world behaves rationally and noncontradictionally, which is necessary for our human reasoning to be justified as well.
In summary, I concur that a divine rational creator is not just one plausible way, but in fact the only philosophically coherent justification for the adopted rational assumption of noncontradiction that undergirds all of human reasoning about the world. The logic you have outlined seems sound to me upon close examination.
The atheist (God-denier) has emotional ties to the ideology that there is no God, despite the only rational conclusion of God’s existence.
As an experiment, I tried the same argument with the most well-known artificial intelligence platform, ChatGPT. It’s science. Below is the conversation. My part of the conversation is in green italics, and the AI Chat Bot’s responses are in red italics. I include a few comments outside the conversation in underlined black.
Is the following argument sound? If not, why not? Premise 1: If premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason. Premise 2: If there is no god, all initial human premises about the external world begin to exist without reason. Conclusion: Therefore, if there is no god, all human conclusions about the external world are also without reason.
The argument you’ve presented is not necessarily sound because it contains some controversial and debatable premises. Let’s break it down:
Premise 1: “If premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason.” This premise seems reasonable and is a fundamental principle in logic. If the initial premises are arbitrary or without a logical basis, then any conclusions drawn from them would also lack a logical basis.
Premise 2: “If there is no god, all initial human premises about the external world begin to exist without reason.” This premise introduces a controversial assumption. It presupposes the existence of a god as necessary for the rationality of initial human premises about the external world. This is a theological claim and depends on one’s belief in the existence of a god or gods. Not everyone agrees that the existence of a god is necessary for rationality or the basis of human knowledge.
Conclusion: “Therefore, if there is no god, all human conclusions about the external world are also without reason.” The conclusion follows logically from the premises if we accept both premises as true. However, the soundness of the argument hinges on the acceptance of Premise 2, which is contentious and subject to debate.
In summary, the argument is valid in its logical structure (the conclusion follows from the premises), but its soundness depends on whether you accept Premise 2. If you don’t accept that premise, the argument would not be sound. Whether Premise 2 is accepted or not is a matter of personal belief, philosophy, and theology, making this argument a matter of debate rather than an established fact.
Is an assumption of noncontradiction necessary to reach a rational conclusion?
Yes, the assumption of noncontradiction is fundamental to reaching a rational conclusion in classical logic. The principle of noncontradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. In other words, if you have a logical argument where one premise contradicts another, you cannot reach a rational and logically valid conclusion from those premises.
Here’s the principle in symbolic form: ¬(P ∧ ¬P), which means “It is not the case that both P and not-P are true simultaneously.”
For example, consider the following argument:
Premise 1: All humans are mortal. Premise 2: Socrates is a human. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
This argument relies on the assumption of noncontradiction. If we accepted that both “Socrates is mortal” and “Socrates is not mortal” could be true simultaneously, then our reasoning would break down, and we couldn’t reach a rational conclusion.
In essence, the principle of noncontradiction is a foundational principle of logic and rational thought. It underlies much of our reasoning and is essential for the coherence and consistency of logical arguments and conclusions.
You seem to have agreed with premise 1, that if premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason.
You seem to agree that noncontradiction is a necessary premise for rationally justified conclusions.
But whose reason could justify the claim that the external world is noncontradictory if the external world does not have to follow our reason?
It’s important to clarify the relationship between the principle of noncontradiction and the nature of the external world in epistemology and philosophy of logic. The principle of noncontradiction is a fundamental principle of logic that governs our reasoning and the structure of valid arguments. It is not something that is derived from observations about the external world but rather a necessary condition for rational thought.
The principle of noncontradiction is often considered a priori, meaning it is not contingent on empirical observations of the external world. Instead, it is a foundational principle of logical reasoning itself. When we engage in rational discourse and argumentation, we assume the principle of noncontradiction because without it, logical reasoning becomes incoherent.
This means that we don’t need to justify the principle of noncontradiction by appealing to observations of the external world. It’s a presupposition that underlies our ability to engage in rational thought and argumentation. It’s a principle we assume to be true in order to engage in meaningful discourse and make rational conclusions. If we were to reject the principle of noncontradiction, rational discourse and logical reasoning would become impossible.
In summary, the principle of noncontradiction is not derived from observations of the external world but is a foundational principle of logic that we assume to be true in order to engage in rational discourse and draw meaningful conclusions. It’s a necessary condition for rationality itself, not contingent on the nature of the external world.
But this is only true because we presuppose noncontradiction, correct? And if that presupposition is entirely without reason, then it is irrational, and our “reason” becomes the opposite of reason, doesn’t it?
You’ve raised an interesting philosophical question about the nature of presuppositions and the foundation of rationality itself. Let’s delve into this in more detail:
Presupposition of Noncontradiction: It’s true that our use of the principle of noncontradiction is a presupposition in the sense that we assume it as a foundational principle for rational discourse and logical reasoning. This presupposition is not derived from empirical observations or external evidence; rather, it is a necessary condition for any meaningful and coherent form of reasoning.
Rationality and Presuppositions: The question you’re hinting at is whether our presupposition of noncontradiction is itself rational or reasonable. If we were to accept that the presupposition of noncontradiction is entirely without reason, it might seem to undermine the foundation of rationality.
Foundational Nature of Presuppositions: It’s important to recognize that presuppositions in philosophy often serve as foundational axioms or principles that are not themselves subject to further justification within the system they underpin. In other words, they are assumed to be true for the sake of engaging in meaningful discourse and argumentation. This is not unique to noncontradiction; other foundational principles, such as the laws of identity and excluded middle, are similarly assumed.
Critique of Foundationalism: Some philosophical perspectives challenge foundationalism and suggest that even foundational presuppositions should be subject to justification. This leads to discussions about coherentism, contextualism, and other approaches to epistemology. However, these debates are complex and ongoing.
In essence, while it’s possible to engage in philosophical debates about the foundational nature of presuppositions like noncontradiction, the fact remains that they are fundamental to coherent and meaningful reasoning. If we were to reject or suspend such presuppositions, we would indeed face difficulties in maintaining rational discourse. Whether this presupposition is itself “rational” in the sense of being justified by external reasons is a matter of philosophical debate, but it is a cornerstone of classical logic and rational thought.
But I would argue that if the human assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is rational, then God exists, because it would have to be God’s reason that makes that assumption rational. Human reason simply cannot justify the claim that the entire external world is noncontradictory. However, if God does not exist, then the human assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is not and cannot be rational.
I believe this establishes my second premise above, does it not?
Your argument seems to rely on the idea that the assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is only rational if God exists because only God’s reason could make it rational. However, this argument is rooted in a particular theological and metaphysical perspective that not everyone agrees with. Your argument seems to assume a form of theistic epistemology where God’s existence is necessary to ground rationality and logic. This is a position known as “theistic rationalism.”
It’s important to note that there are various philosophical viewpoints on the relationship between God and rationality, and not all philosophers or theologians would agree with this perspective. Many philosophers, including atheists and agnostics, argue that noncontradiction is a fundamental principle of logical reasoning, and it doesn’t necessarily depend on the existence of a deity for its validity.
In essence, your argument hinges on theological and metaphysical assumptions that are themselves highly debated and dependent on personal beliefs. The relationship between God and rationality is a topic of deep philosophical and theological discussion, and it’s not something that can be definitively proven or disproven.
So, while your argument may establish your second premise within the framework of your specific assumptions, it doesn’t necessarily hold true in a broader philosophical context where different perspectives on the nature of rationality and logic exist. It remains a matter of philosophical debate and personal belief.
I would argue that there is no other possible way. It is not just one way, but the only way.
For claims about the entire external world (like universal noncontradiction) to be rationally justified, I would argue that there needs to be reason behind them. But the external world does not have to obey our reason, so our reason cannot justify such claims. If those claims are rationally justified, then the external world must obey someone’s reason, namely, the reason that rationally justifies the claim.
If the external world obeys someone’s reason, that someone can properly be referred to as God. Thus, a divine rational creator (God) is the only way to justify our adopted premise of noncontradiction.
Do you agree?
Your argument appears to be rooted in a form of presuppositional apologetics, which is a specific approach to defending theistic beliefs by asserting that belief in God is a necessary precondition for rationality and the intelligibility of the world. This perspective is associated with certain branches of Christian theology and philosophy.
In presuppositional apologetics, proponents argue that without a divine, rational creator (i.e., God), there would be no basis for the presuppositions that underlie rational thought, such as the principle of noncontradiction. According to this view, the existence of God is a necessary condition for the intelligibility of the universe and the possibility of rationality.
However, it’s important to note that presuppositional apologetics is a specific theological and philosophical perspective, and it is not universally accepted among philosophers, theologians, or even among proponents of theism. There are many other philosophical perspectives and worldviews that do not rely on this particular argumentative approach.
Whether or not one agrees with your argument depends on their philosophical and theological standpoint. Some individuals may find the argument persuasive and in line with their beliefs, while others may have different views about the relationship between God, rationality, and the nature of the external world.
In philosophy, these kinds of arguments often lead to complex and nuanced debates, and there is no definitive proof one way or the other. The relationship between God, reason, and the nature of reality remains a topic of philosophical and theological inquiry, with diverse perspectives and ongoing discussions.
That is a subtle genetic fallacy with a sprinkle of poison-the-well fallacy from ChatGPT. Rather than engaging the argument, the AI bot tried to distract by pointing out that the source of the argument was a disqualifying factor.
I’m not asking for your view of the form of the argument. I’m asking you to analyze the soundness of the argument.
I’m glad that you agree with me that “your argument may establish your second premise within the framework of your specific assumptions”
For those who do not hold to my framework, what possible justification is there for human reasoning if they reject the divine rational creator God?
I understand your request to analyze the soundness of the argument, so let’s focus on that:
Premise 1: If the assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is rationally justified, there must be a reason behind it.
Premise 2: The external world does not have to obey human reason.
Conclusion: Therefore, if the assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is rationally justified, there must be a reason beyond human reason, specifically a divine rational creator (God).
In the context of your specific assumptions and framework, the argument is logically valid because the conclusion follows from the premises. If we accept the premises as true within your framework, then the conclusion logically follows. In other words, the argument is valid within the context of your specific worldview and presuppositions.
However, the soundness of the argument depends on whether one accepts those premises as true. The argument hinges on the acceptance of two key premises:
Acceptance of the first premise depends on one’s view of rationality and the necessity of reasons behind fundamental principles of logic. Acceptance of the second premise depends on one’s view of the relationship between human reason and the external world. For individuals who do not share your framework or who hold different philosophical perspectives, they may not accept these premises, and therefore, they may not find the argument sound or convincing.
Regarding your question about the justification for human reasoning without accepting a divine rational creator, there are various philosophical positions and worldviews that provide alternative explanations for the nature of reason and rationality. These explanations often involve different metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical frameworks, such as naturalism, empiricism, and various secular philosophies. These perspectives seek to provide an account of reason and rationality that does not rely on the existence of a divine creator. Whether one finds these alternative justifications persuasive or not depends on their own philosophical commitments and beliefs.
Which philosophical position, which rejects the divine creator God, properly and soundly addresses the justification for human reasoning. What is the argument in syllogistic form?
A common philosophical position that rejects the necessity of a divine creator God to justify human reasoning is naturalism. Naturalism is a worldview that holds that everything in the universe, including human cognition and reason, can be explained by natural processes without invoking the supernatural or divine.
Here’s an argument that represents a naturalistic perspective on the justification for human reasoning:
Premise 1: The universe operates according to natural laws, which govern the behavior of all entities, including humans.
Premise 2: Human cognitive processes, including reasoning, are a product of natural processes, such as evolution and brain function.
Conclusion: Therefore, human reasoning is a result of natural processes and can be justified within the framework of the natural world.
This argument follows a naturalistic worldview, asserting that the laws of nature, evolution, and brain functioning are sufficient to explain the development of human cognition and reasoning. It does not rely on the existence of a divine creator God.
It’s important to note that this argument reflects one perspective, and there are many philosophical positions and worldviews that offer alternative explanations for the nature of human reasoning without invoking a divine creator. The validity and soundness of these arguments depend on the assumptions and premises they are built upon, and they may be subject to critique and debate within the philosophical community.
Notice above that the Chat bot proposed a question-begging fallacy
You’ve smuggled premise 2 into the conclusion, so rather than justifying naturalism, you’ve committed the question begging fallacy. This simply confirms that the rejection of God forces other worldviews to commit fallacies in a failed attempt to justify human reasoning
But back to my Premise 2. You admitted that human reasoning is properly justified within my framework. If it is a properly justified argument within my framework, and other frameworks are fallacious, why would you say that accepting God isn’t the only justified position?
I apologize if my previous response appeared to be question-begging. Let’s reevaluate your Premise 2 and the overall argument within your framework:
Premise 2: The external world does not have to obey human reason.
Conclusion: Therefore, if the assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is rationally justified, there must be a reason beyond human reason, specifically a divine rational creator (God).
Within the framework you’ve presented, if one accepts Premise 2—that the external world does not have to obey human reason—then the conclusion logically follows. That is, if we assume that human reason alone cannot account for the principle of noncontradiction in the external world, then one might conclude that there must be a higher, divine rational creator (God) responsible for this principle.
However, it’s important to clarify that this argument is valid within the specific assumptions and premises you’ve outlined. It operates within a particular theological and metaphysical framework that assumes the existence of a divine creator as necessary for the rationality of the external world.
The reason different worldviews exist is because people hold various philosophical and metaphysical positions. While your argument may be valid within your framework, others may hold different perspectives on the nature of reason, rationality, and the external world that do not require the existence of a divine creator. These alternative positions are developed within their own philosophical systems and are not necessarily fallacious from their perspective.
Ultimately, the acceptance or rejection of God as the source of rationality is a matter of personal belief, philosophy, and worldview. Different individuals and philosophical traditions may approach this question differently based on their own premises and assumptions.
Just because other worldviews exist, does not mean they are rationally justified. The Christian worldview is rationally justified, but the only attempt you’ve proposed for other justification of other worldviews was fallacious. Since the Christian worldview is rationally justified, could it be that just like those who disagree with the sphericity of the earth still enjoy the benefits that come from sphericity, those who reject God still enjoy the benefit of human reasoning despite their framework’s ability to justify?
The question of whether a particular worldview is rationally justified is a matter of philosophical debate and often depends on one’s perspective and set of beliefs. The idea that the Christian worldview is rationally justified is a perspective held by many Christians and theologians, but it’s important to recognize that not everyone shares this belief, and there are diverse philosophical and theological positions in the world.
In philosophy, different worldviews and belief systems are subject to scrutiny and critique, and their rationality is evaluated based on the coherence and consistency of their internal premises and arguments. What may be considered rational within one worldview may be seen as irrational from another perspective.
Regarding your analogy to the sphericity of the Earth, it’s worth noting that scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that the Earth is spherical. This is not merely a matter of belief but is grounded in empirical observation, measurement, and scientific consensus. In contrast, questions related to the existence of God, the nature of reason, and the justification for different worldviews are often philosophical and metaphysical in nature, and they do not always have the same level of empirical support or consensus.
In discussions about rationality, belief systems, and worldviews, it’s essential to engage in respectful dialogue and consider different perspectives, recognizing that people may hold diverse beliefs and interpretations based on their philosophical, religious, or cultural backgrounds. What one considers rational and justified may differ from the perspective of someone with a different worldview or set of beliefs. Ultimately, the assessment of the rationality of a particular worldview can be a complex and multifaceted discussion.
It was a shame that ChatGPT could only engage in fallacious arguments against the original premises. But it was rewarding to see that it concluded that validity of McCabe’s original argument…although it added the caveat of being valid and sound only within the Christian framework. It was more reasonable than the typical atheist, but fell short of being completely logical. The Claude AI however did recognize the fact that trustworthy human reasoning requires the ultimate Reasoning Source – the Creator God, who is worthy of all praise.
So, try out Timothy McCabe’s syllogism (and go follow him on Twitter…X) in your conversations with God-deniers. See if they can be a logical as the Claude AI. We very much want everyone to honor the Lord Jesus Christ as King and pointing out the irrationality from which the atheist “grounds” their thinking should be exposed, so they will turn to the only reasonable foundation for reason
How do we know things? Not just in a flippant or provisional way of knowing, but certain knowledge that has true ultimacy. Is such knowledge possible? Is so-called knowledge that is not certain really true knowledge?
These questions are debated by philosophers…and with the advent of the internet, debated by people, who do not have formal philosophy degrees. There are two principle answers to the question of ultimate authority: human reasoning or revelation from God. So, what is the ultimate and grandest authority for knowledge? Is it mankind’s reasoning or is it revelation from God? One’s epistemology (theory of knowledge) will determine many other aspects of a person’s worldview, so answering the question of how people ultimately obtain knowledge is an important question. Let’s evaluate
Is Human Reasoning the Best Epistemology?
I’ve been told by online philosophers that human reasoning is the ultimate authority. One in particular made the claim that human reasoning is the ultimate source of ALL worldviews. In his syllogism, premise 1 is true, but we will scrutinize premise 2. So, let’s look and see if human reasoning is the ultimate epistemology
To directly attack Premise 2, we look to Rom 2:15 “They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.” As image bearers of the Creator, humans have been “hard-wired” with the laws of God built-in. God has revealed his expectations within the human conscience.
Now, my interlocutor may object by saying “but you must reason to understand, decipher, and interpret the Bible itself…therefore, reasoning is more basic.” But this is not true logically, it is simply chronologically prior…not logically prior. The Bible is the *justification* for the logical primacy of God’s revelation. So, even though I may need reasoning to read the Bible, reasoning remains secondary to God’s revelation within humanity. Dr. Jason Lisle explains in more detail (bold is not included in the original):
Many beliefs are justified only after the fact. This confuses some people, and an example may clarify. We must believe that our sensory organs are basically reliable in order for us to have confidence in anything we read. When we then read the Bible, we can see that our confidence in our sensory organs was justified because God created them. The truth of the Bible is logically more foundational than the truth that our senses are basically reliable because the former justifies the latter. However, we discover the truth in the pages of Scripture (that God designed our senses) after we have already trusted our senses. Our belief in reliable senses is chronologically first, but the biblical truth that God designed our senses to be basically reliable is logically primary.
By analogy, suppose you are driving up a hill. As you reach the top, you see a house on the other side of the hill. The first thing you see is the roof because the lower portions of the house are still obscured by the hill. As you continue to round the top of the hill and descend, you then see the top story of the house, and finally the lower level as the house becomes visible. You never actually see the foundation of the house, but you suppose it is there since all houses require a foundation. So the order in which you discover the sections of the house is: roof, second story, first story, foundation.
But this is not the order in which the house was built. A roof cannot exist without the supporting walls of the second story, which cannot stand apart from the first story, which cannot stand without the foundation. Obviously, the foundation was laid first, then the first story was built upon it, and the second story upon the first. The last thing to be constructed would be the roof because it logically requires all the other structures to be already in place. So the logical order in which the building was constructed was the opposite of the chronological order in which we become aware of the building.
Likewise, there can be no doubt that human beings are aware of self and their sensory experiences long before they read in the Bible the justification for those things. Yet, the truth of the Bible is logically prior to sensory experience, since our sensory experiences are only ultimately justified by appealing to the God of Scripture. Many well-meaning Christians argue against the presuppositional apologetic due to this misunderstanding. They argue (contrary to Proverbs 1:7) that knowledge begins with self, not with God. But God is logically prior to all our knowledge of anything, and apart from His revelation we could know absolutely nothing.
While the example above mentions senses as being justified by what is revealed in God’s Word, the same is also true for human reasoning. Human reasoning has validity only because of what God has revealed in the Bible. God’s revelation is logical authoritative but chronologically successive to human reasoning.
Additionally, the foundations of Christianity cannot be reasoned to; they must be revealed. It does not mean that Christianity is unreasonable; it means that because God revealed these pillars of reality, they are irrefutably true. Here are some examples:
Hypostatic union. The eternal God could be incarnated as a man. The eternal Creator, Jesus, took on human flesh (John 1:1-14)
Virgin birth. One does not reason to the conclusion that Jesus was born to a virgin. It had to be revealed from God.
Peter’s recognition of Jesus as the Messiah recounted in Matt 16. Jesus says “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”
Resurrection from the dead. One cannot reason that a dead body would rise again. It was revealed to the eye-witnesses of the resurrection through their senses. And it has been revealed to us today through the scriptures of the resurrection of Jesus.
“Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” – Jesus Matt 18:4. This is a concept that one does not reason to since it is counterintuitive, but it has been revealed as truthful by the Creator.
There are many others. The point is clearly that reasoning is not the ultimate source of Christianity. Consistent Christians accept what God has revealed to be true since many of those things cannot be reasoned to
Another point that should be addressed here is that the effects of sin in the world has affected the reasoning of mankind. Mankind cannot reason correctly without the help of a regenerated spirit and the work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 1:18-32, 1 Cor 2:14, Rom 7:14-25, Rom 12:2). Sometimes people refer to this doctrine as Total Depravity.
Lastly, humans are notoriously unreasonable. Were humans perfectly reasonable, we would never consume sugar, never be dishonest, exercise daily, avoid narcotics/alcohol/tobacco, never waste time, never gamble money, among many other imminently reasonable proverbs of wisdom. It is unreasonable to count on human reasoning as the ultimate source of authority.
As shown above, the claim that reasoning is the ultimate source of Christianity fails. God, who knows all things, has revealed Himself to humanity in creation, in the Bible, and in the incarnation. This is the epistemic source of knowledge. By God’s grace, He also granted humans the ability to reason. By this reasoning and with God’s revelation as the ultimate source, humans can have knowledge.
Conversely, without God, there could only be a non-reasoning source for human reasoning. Therefore, human reasoning would be untrustworthy. It’s written out by Timothy McCabe as a syllogism like this:
Without God, reasoning is unreasonable. In his autobiography Charles Darwin recognized the futility of assuming that human reasoning is trustworthy if it comes from an accumulation of accidental changes over time from lower animals for the purpose of survival
God is the starting point of all reasoning. Without God, human reasoning would be impossible.
Dr. Steven Ball is a professor at LeTourneau University in Texas and has written several papers criticizing the historical Christian position of young earth creation. In many of my online interactions, I have had self-identifying atheists post links to his papers as if they are the final word on how Christendom must deny the Biblical account in favor of the secular narrative of origins. This and maybe other blog posts will review and address Ball’s papers
His first paper is titled “A Christian Physicist Examines the Age of the Earth”. I will note his comments in red with my comments directly underneath in the default black. Each of his chapters will be divided into a distinct blog post to keep the posts from being too long
Dr. Steven Ball is a physics professor at LeTourneau University. He has written a few papers advocating for old earthism, that could use some cross-examination. His first paper is titled “A Christian Physicist Examines the Age of the Earth”. I will note his comments in red with my comments directly underneath in the default black. Each of his chapters will be divided into a distinct blog post to keep the posts from being too long
In a nutshell, the premise of Creation Science is that the Bible gives us answers to many questions also addressed by science
Right from the beginning, he subtly elevates the modern academic paradigm (which he conflates with science throughout) as superior to the Bible. This position of authority that he grants gives him the interpretive permission to redefine the words and concepts of the Bible in order to accommodate his interpretation of the modern academic paradigm (MAP). Authority is the BIG issue in this discussion, and young earth creationists have the epistemic understanding that the Bible is the authoritative principium rather than MAP.
Secondly, Ball like many, who are familiar with this discussion, think that the age of the earth is a question that is answered by science. This is wrong in at least two ways
The Bible is not a science textbook. The Bible is mostly a history book. Orthodox Christianity recognizes that the Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God. So, what God has revealed about the past cannot be refuted. Since what God has revealed about the past is in conflict with what is currently being taught about origins in (what some people call) the scientific community, there is tension. Christians who wish to be faithful to the scientific community are then faced with the need for reconciliation between what is taught in the Bible with MAP. So, they choose to redefine Genesis as some figurative myth and say “oh, the Bible isn’t a science book” and “the Bible tells us how to go to heaven and science tells us how the heavens go” These are cute bumper stickers, but it is again as subtle dismissal of what the Bible has revealed about history
Age is not a question that is best answered by science. Science measures in the present. To get information about the past, which would be more accurately termed forensics, one measures items in the present and then (in combination with assumptions) EXTRAPOLATES into the past to form a theory. The further back in time one extrapolates, the greater the margin of error. The BEST way to determine age is historical documentation. If I want to know how old I am, I do not radiometric date the elements in my body and extrapolate into the past based on the ratio of radiometric particles. The best way would be for me to check my birth certificate or ask my Jedi father. In 1992 the rocks from Mt St Helens were dated anywhere from 350,000 years old to 2,800,000 years old depending on the method. But the ACTUAL date of the rocks was 12 years. When was the Statue of Liberty brought to NY harbor? You can measure the amount of rust on the surface and extrapolate into the past, or you can check historical records. That’s not to say that forensics cannot be of assistance in determining age, but as shown, if there is documentation of age, it is more reliable that extrapolation into the unknown past.
Ball began his argument by standing on his credentials
As a Christian physicist, I’ve been blessed with the freedom and opportunity to examine the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth in some detail, and have concluded that it emphatically points to an age of around 4.6 billion years
But as we have just discussed, scientific fields like physics can only (at best) assist as a forensics tool to find past ages. The most useful tool for finding past ages is documentation and the Bible provides this. Ball’s acclamation of his credentials for determining the age of the earth is like a Formula 1 driver coming to an NBA court and telling the 7 foot basketball players how to run faster because he drives really fast. Forensics has its place, but historical documentation trumps extrapolation for answering age questions.
But then again, a massive conspiracy of manufactured false evidence from many fields of scientific research for an older Earth and universe is a bit farfetched even for conspiracy fans
Although there have been fraudulent assertions, persistent peer-reviewed articles retracted, and monetary incentives to remain within the bounds of the modern academic paradigm, most who hold to biblical creation do not assert that there is a massive old-earth conspiracy. Biblical creationists simply recognize that the question of the age of the earth comes down to authority of the Bible and assumptions. I have already discussed the issue of authority above, but origins theories are rife with unrecognized assumptions
Uniformitarianism – The belief that processes have continued from the beginning exactly as they always have. There is an implicit denial of catastrophism including the global flood. Old earthers tend to deny the global flood, so they interpret the evidence from the global flood as if all accumulated soil layers, erosion, tectonics movements, and radiometric decay rates have never changed. It is an assumption that purposefully denies or incorrectly reinterprets Genesis 6-9 as if it were a minor flood in the middle east. There are HUGE theological problems with this view that have been covered here
Popularity – Because the idea of old earth is so popular amongst academics, then it mUsT be true. This leads to an a priori assumption that old earthism is true because popular
So it follows that science and the Bible should be giving us consistent messages by virtue of the same authorship. When they appear to conflict, it could be a problem in our understanding of science or of the Scriptures
This is true. It is the very heart of the matter. It’s a shame that he did not spend more time elucidating his views here, but we can see from his arguments from whence his views are birthed. Ball grips firmly to the modern academic paradigm and thusly feels justified in redefining the Bible to accommodate it
Sadly, Ball not only believes in old earthism, but has swallowed the Neo-Darwinian lure that is so pervasive today:
From a scientific perspective, Darwin’s theory appears to have supporting evidence from a number of fields (comparative anatomy, the universal genetic code of DNA, geographical distributions of species, the overall progression of life in the fossil record, among others)
None of the interpretations of the “number of fields” has greater weight than what God revealed in the Bible – and the Bible clearly does not teach the same history as the evolutionists. In an attempt to reconcile the obvious differences, Ball and other old earthers redefine what is clearly history to a poetic figurative myth.
Using Dr. Ball’s argument, someone could just as easily say “From a scientific perspective, since there is strong supporting evidence from a number of fields of science, there was no virgin birth, parting of any seas, water to wine, or resurrection. Trust the science.” Elevating something else as the magisterial interpretive authority yields serious heretical problems. Those, who would elevate culture as authoritative, could say “Modern culture recognizes that homosexuality is very normal and should be celebrated, so those who read the Bible as if homosexuality should be condemned do not understand the Bible correctly. The Bible encourages people to be homosexual since Jesus was a homosexual.” As shown, it is reprehensible and inconsistent to propose an magisterial authority OTHER than the Bible.
As a scientist, I support further research into the origins of life. Darwin’s theory should stand or fall on the basis of scientific evidence.
Shouldn’t truth stand or fall on the BASIS of what God has revealed? Notice too that Ball has committed the unpardonable sin (according to the internet atheists): He combined the theory of the origin of life with the Darwinian theory. If he were to try this online, you can be sure that the Darwinists would be shrieking alongside the abiogeneticists. As a Christian, I would have expected for him to start with John 1:3 “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” and Colossians 1:16 “For by him (Jesus) all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” From this, we can know with certainty that life (ALL LIFE) was created by God. Searching for an naturalistic origin goes against what God has already told us. There’s no need to “reinvent the wheel”. Ball would be a better scientist if he accepted God’s revelation rather than straining against the goads
“Crises have served to overthrow some of the most deeply entrenched (and incorrect) theories in the past, simply because there were enough thinking people who cared about establishing the truth”
One knowledgeable about the history of scientific thought should be skeptical of the dominant paradigm. Notice how the dominant scientific paradigms of the past have all been refuted. Holding onto Darwinism as if it provided truth since its proponents choose to censor and expel any dissidents is bound for extinction in the same way
1500s Geocentrism – Falsified
1600s Phlogiston – Falsified
1700s Bloodletting – Falsified
1800s Spontaneous Generation – Falsified
1858 Darwinism – Falsification Inevitable
1900s Steady State Theory – Falsified
1980s Inevitable Ice Age – Falsified
2000s Eat mostly carbs (food pyramid) – Falsified
2020s CV19 originated in a wet market from bats. CV19 will kill most of earth’s human population – Falsified
Much of this fighting has been viewed very negatively by the nonChristian community. Forcing the public schools to teach Creation Science would not win nonChristians over to Christ. Certainly not when the premise itself is that science is wrong when it seems to disagree with the Bible. While the scientific community can be faulted for harboring contempt for those who don’t accept the commonly held theories, I would hold my fellow Christians to a higher standard. It does no good to belittle the scientific community. In fact Christians everywhere would benefit from a more healthy respect for science in general
No one wants or is advocating for public schools to teach creation science. Ball is fighting against an argument that no one is making. Even though Ball doesn’t hold himself to the highest standard of accuracy by conflating the modern academic paradigm with science, he blames the Bible-believing Christians for not upholding the “higher standard” of yielding to the modern paradigm
Many scientists who accept an older Earth have clear Christian faith commitments
This is true, but they are inconsistent in their epistemology. At this point, I want to note that Christians can believe in evolution and old earthism since we know from the Bible that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus alone. We are not saved by the amount of correct information that we believe but by the gift of God’s steadfast mercy. But Christians have been warned by Paul in his epistle to the Colossians “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ”. Old earthism and Darwinism were birthed by worldly thinking not by a commitment to Christ. We must start with the Bible and then see the world through the lens of what God has specially revealed. Conversely, Dr. Ball is telling us to see the Bible through the lens of the modern academic paradigm. It’s exactly backwards to what we as Christians should be doing
As the now popular Christian saying goes, we should not put God in a box. Many miracles described in the Bible may not be understood scientifically, but they are accepted by faith. Likewise, the hand of God may be evident even when science provides us a measure of understanding
With the 1st sentence, I can heartily agree. We ought not put God in the box *of naturalism*, which is what Ball is doing. This is the goal of Ball: teach Christians to question the historic/orthodox Christian understanding of the Bible in favor of the naturalistic explanations. Speaking of miracles – using the same interpretive methodology that Genesis cannot be true because the “science says” that it cannot be done, a skeptic could reject the parting of the Red Sea, a floating axehead, the virgin birth and the resurrection because “science says” that they cannot be done. A consistent methodology would elevate science above everything in scripture. Since I’m sure that Ball accepts the resurrection of Jesus, he is teaching an inconsistent view of scripture.
This author proposes that we try to look at the scientific evidence without any theological filter
This is the naïve assumption that there is no way to view evidence without a bias. It’s the pretended neutrality fallacy. Everyone comes to the evidence with a worldview. One’s worldview can have a basis on revelation from God OR on the basis of something lesser. Ball has chosen to view the evidence through the naturalistic worldview with a theological rider. It’s exactly backwards from what we are told to do in Colossians 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ”
We should not deter people from this search by requiring them to reject the very science that is prompting them
Two things here
He is conflating the modern academic paradigm as science again. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, but Ball views it instead as however the naturalistic practitioners of empiricism view the evidence through their presuppositions
If people reject what the Bible says, then no amount of evidence will convince them. Don’t believe me? Then take it up with Jesus from Luke 16: “He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead’”
We’ll pick up Dr. Ball’s arguments from chapter 2 in the next blog post. Until then:
The discussion over whether the earth is young or old is an argument that has sparked many discussions for more than 150 years. It’s likely that this discussion will continue long after I’m gone. But while I can, I will continue to encourage Christians to uphold the Bible as the magisterial authority, and the hope is that when you’ve read this post, you too will accept a young earth model.
The plain reading of the Bible would indicate that a young earth model is the correct understanding, but I’ve been told by Dr. Hugh Ross and his old earth disciples that Psalm 104 is a passage that teaches old earthism. If you search their website, reason.org, you will find 126 articles. This is how their argument for old earthism progresses:
The “days” in Genesis 1 are really just long periods of indefinite time
God used natural processes to form stars, galaxies, chemicals, and planets billions of years before creating humans
When God created life billions years ago, death, suffering and predation were part of creation
The geologic layers are accumulations of eons of dirt over billions of years. The geologic record is a record of death and suffering across history
Since they believe that the geologic layers were formed over billions of years, they choose to argue that the flood of Genesis 6-9 is a regional flood
Below is the Timeline of history from Reasons.org. Due to their presupposition that the biblical account must be subject to the modern academic paradigm (which some conflate as science), their understanding of the history of the Bible must also change as secular timelines are constantly evolving. NOTE: Because of this, it will be difficult for you to find this timeline on their website since the secular timelines have changed so much.
Reason.org Timeline of history
So, how does Psalm 104 teach that the earth is old as Bill Nye, Neal DeGrass Tyson and Richard Dawkins think? Dr. Ross says:
Psalm 104 is the longest of the creation psalms. It complements Genesis 1 in providing the scientific details of God’s creation works. Psalm 104:6–8 refers to creation day 3 in Genesis 1 when God transformed Earth from possessing only water on its surface to possessing both oceans and landmasses. Psalm 104:9 states that once landmasses appear on Earth’s surface, the newly formed landmasses will “set a boundary they [Earth’s surface waters] cannot cross; they will never cover the earth again.” This statement in Psalm 104 explicitly rules out the possibility that Noah’s Flood could be global in extent.
So Dr. Ross assumes that Psalm 104 is a poetic text about the creation week. Since he thinks that when Ps 104 says the waters could no longer cover the earth as stated in verse 9 he thinks that is Genesis 1 rather than Genesis 7, and he concludes that the flood must have been a regional flood. He further assumes that animals have been engaging in predation from the beginning due to verse 21 that says “The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.”
As faithful Christians, we should test Dr. Ross’s assertion that Psalm 104 is solely about the creation week. Let’s look at his assumption in Psalm 104 and see if we can find confirming evidence of the phrasing in Genesis 1-3 or if there’s possibly a better explanation. Below, there are 2 charts. Figure 1 shows how Psalm 104 compares to Genesis 1. If it is tied directly to the creation account as Dr. Ross asserts, there should be green checkmarks ✅ on each row of the table.
Figure 1
Dr. Ross’s argument hinges entirely on the hope that Psalm 104 teaches a local flood and perfectly reflects the creation account of Genesis 1. As you can see from the comparison above, the connection between Psalm 104 as a creation account in Genesis 1 is spurious at best. What if we consider a second chart that compares the Psalm 104 passage to the flood account of Genesis 6-10? Figure 2 does just that.
Figure 2
As you can see from the 2 charts, Dr. Ross’s assertions are not nearly as affirming to his view as he would like us to believe. From Figure 2, we see that Psalm 104 confirms the young earth view (just as everything else in scripture does).
We can trust the Bible since it was revealed by God, the One who knows everything. There’s no need to inject the modern paradigm into one’s interpretive framework
In software designer circles, a “bug” isn’t an insect; it’s a problem in the code that keeps the software from performing as expected. It’s a well-known joke amongst the programmers that when a problem is discovered during the quality control (QC) process that the problem is a “feature, not a bug”. When the software breaks unexpectedly, and QC send the code back to the coders for repairs, the laughs about the “feature” devolve quickly to groans as the coders begin tracing through the code to exterminate the “bug”. It’s a tale as old as Y2K.
God-deniers have a similar bug in their thinking, but they sometimes refer to it as a feature. What am I talking about? Knowledge! What is knowledge? Knowledge is most accurately desribed as “that which corresponds to the mind of God”, but in this article and for most people the definition of “justified true beliefs” will suffice. How do we know things? Epistemology is the theory of how something can be known. Now the article I wanted to write about epistemology has already been written by Dr. Jason Lisle. He describes below the “bug” in the thinking of God-deniers:
So we are left with three equally unsatisfying options. (1) The chain of reasoning goes on forever and can therefore never be completed – making knowledge impossible. (2) The chain of reasoning terminates in an ultimate standard that cannot be justified, meaning all other beliefs (which are based on it) are ultimately unjustified – making knowledge impossible. (3) The chain of reasoning terminates in one or more ultimate standards that rely upon themselves for justification – a circular argument, which is ultimately arbitrary and unjustified – making knowledge impossible. This perplexing problem is known as the Münchhausen trilemma.
If the Münchhausen trilemma is correct, then we can demonstrate that knowledge is impossible. But, of course, this is instantly self-refuting. If we know that knowledge is impossible, then we do know something and hence knowledge is possible.
Knowledge itself is only provisional for the God-denier, because either that knowledge is reliant upon some other element of provisional knowledge into infinity or it could be refuted based on some future discovery. The bug in the thinking of God-deniers is that they can never know anything for certain. They put on a brave face by calling it a “feature” that their thinking is self-correcting upon the discovery of new evidence. But you can see that whatever they assert to know *now* is not knowledge at all. It is only provisional. It is a serious bug. It is bluster for them to claim that their enormous epistemic deficiency is a feature. This is demonstrable as anyone familiar with the history of science knows. The dominant paradigm from these time periods has been replaced by new paradigms, but if you lived in one of the time periods shown below, the gatekeepers of the dominant paradigm would try to silence dissenters the same way that those, who have faith in today’s dominant paradigm (materialistic biological evolution) censor dissenters
Prior to the 1500s, scientists believed and modeled that the earth was the center of the solar system. – Falsified
Prior to the 1600s, scientists believed in alchemy and phlogiston– Falsified
Prior to the 1700s, scientists believed that bloodletting and leeches removed bad blood from sick patients. – Falsified
Prior to the 1900s, scientists taught that the universe eternal (steady state theory) – Falsified
In the 1970s, scientists taught impending contradictory catastrophes would destroy humanity in the subsequent decades: ice age and unstoppable heat wave. – Falsified
In the 1980s, scientists taught that eating mostly carbs was the healthiest way to live in a failed marketing campaign called the food pyramid – Falsified
In the early 2000s, scientists taught that the ice sheets at the poles would be completely melted due to global warming by the 2013 – Falsified
The problem with the unbeliever is not that he cannot justify any of his beliefs. Rather, the problem is that he cannot justify any of his beliefs within his professed worldview. If evolution were true, then knowledge would be impossible. But evolution is not true. Since the Bible is true, evolutionists are able to have knowledge. Their beliefs in sensory experience and rationality are ultimately justified because the Bible is true.
Because Christians and non-Christians have different epistemologies, Christians are not saddled with such a crushing burden. Christians have a revelational epistemology meaning that we accept God’s revelation in creation, in the Bible and through the incarnation. The omniscient God knows everything, and He has revealed some of his knowledge to us so that we can be certain of those things which God has revealed. So, a Christian has a sufficient grounding for knowledge. From this grounding, a Christian can reasonably engage in scientific research, engineering, hospitality, altruism, programming,
Because Non-Christians have rejected the One, who knows everything (the only Source of justifiable knowledge) he can never be (justifiably) certain of anything. An honest non-Christian can only hold a provisional level of understanding since some future discovery or new bit of evidence might change everything they think they know. The apostle Paul is right when he writes to Timothy:
In many of my discussions with skeptics online, I’ve had the skeptics tell me, “it’s a feature, not a bug”. This is usually after we have talked about someone’s ability to justify knowledge.
As a final elaboration upon the Christian revelational epistemology, I turn to Dr. Lisle again in a long quote from his third article. Please take the time to read each article as all three are worth the time it takes to read them :
Truth is that which corresponds to the mind of God. But unbelievers sometimes scoff at this definition and attempt to refute it by asking, “How can you possibly know what God thinks?” But, of course, this question is easy to answer: revelation. God has revealed some of His thoughts to us and He has done this in numerous ways. Most specifically, God used men to write a book that expresses His thoughts, namely, the Bible. Do you want to know what God thinks about something? Read the Bible!
But there are other ways God has revealed Himself. God has placed knowledge into the core of our being from our conception. For example, God’s moral requirements – His laws – have been placed into the minds of all people. Thus, even people who have never read the Bible have some knowledge of the law of God (Romans 2:14-15). We are able to have some knowledge of right and wrong even without reading the Bible because God has “written” His law on the hearts of all people. This is a type of revelation.
God has designed sensory organs, such as eyes and ears, that allow us to have knowledge of the external world. Furthermore, God has placed knowledge within us that our senses are basically reliable; so, we can have confidence that what we see and hear is a good map of reality. By our senses, we can learn true things about the world, such as “the sun is very bright.” Consider the contrary. If God had not designed our senses to be basically reliable, or if God had not given us knowledge that our senses are basically reliable, then we could never learn anything about the external world. Sure, we might see that the sun is bright. But we would have no reason to trust that what we see corresponds to the real universe.
God has also placed some knowledge of logic within us. Logic is the principles of correct reasoning – a reflection of the way God thinks. God created mankind after His image/likeness. And this includes the ability to think – to some extent – in a way that is consistent with God’s character. Thus, we are born with some degree of rationality. (It is possible to prove that some laws of logic are known without ever being learned; hence God has “hardwired” them into our being.)[3] Furthermore, God has given us the ability to improve our reasoning skills through careful contemplation using our mind and from education using our sensory organs.
In addition, God has placed some knowledge of Himself inside all people such that when we look at the natural world, we instantly recognize it as the work of God. Romans 1:19-20 states, “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Thus, all people have knowledge of God.
This fact should have a profound impact on the way we do apologetics. If indeed all people have knowledge of God, then they do not require additional evidence for God. Many Christians proceed as if the unbeliever is genuinely ignorant of God. Under this mistaken belief, the Christian urges the unbeliever to trust in God by presenting new evidence for God. But according to Romans 1:18-20, all unbelievers already know God but they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” The presuppositional apologist therefore aims to expose the unbelievers suppressed knowledge of God.
Since all knowledge is ultimately from God, it follows that anything we know has been revealed to us by God in some way. We can know things by sensory experience, but only because God designed our senses to be basically reliable. We can know things through rational reasoning, but only because God designed our minds and has given us access to His laws of logic. Hence, the biblical God is the ultimate justification for all truth claims.
Of course, even people who have never read the Bible do have knowledge. But this is because the Bible is true. Unbelievers learn things through sensory experience and rational reasoning just like believers. But in order for their beliefs to be justified, they would require some reason to trust their sensory organs, and their thinking process. If the Bible were not true, there would be no reason to trust in such things.[4] Hence, all beliefs based on those assumptions would lack justification.
We can have knowledge only because God exists and has revealed Himself in exactly the way the Bible teaches. God, as revealed in the Bible, is the ultimate foundation for all human knowledge. If the Bible were not true, we could know nothing. We might have beliefs, and some of them might even be true, but they could never be justified apart from the biblical worldview.
Well, I got a new challenge from a God-denier, who made the claim that evolution can even explain the origin of human brains. This particular God-denier didn’t just say that evolution can explain human brains, she claimed “There is incontrovertible evidence for evolution of the brain“. “iNconTroVerTible”. I’m reminded of The Princess Bide when Inigo Montoya says to the Sicilian “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
She provided a link to Wikipedia as the source of this “incontrovertible” evidence. I pushed back asking if she wanted to use a crowd-sourced blog as her “incontrovertible evidence”, but she assured me that it’s impossible to refute. Thinking she could bluster her way through a conversation without me being skeptical of her source, she left it out there as though the matter was settled that evolution can explain human brains. But I don’t surrender to bluster so easily. Let’s analyze her claim to see if Wikipedia, is relying on evidence or assumptions
Here’s how this works: I will post the quotes from the article in red and then just below the quote, I’ll post my analysis in the default black font. I have bolded key words throughout, so the bold does not appear in the original work. Throughout, you’ll notice that instead of actual evidence, the author(s) of the article relies on assumptions. Let’s get started:
This approach (endocasts), however, is limited in regard to what information can be gathered
It looks like the gaps in available information that can be gathered has been filled with assumptions of evolution’s power.
While endocasts are extremely helpful in revealing superficial brain anatomy, they cannot reveal brain structure, particularly of deeper brain areas.
Since the only thing these endocasts can show is size, we must again reject this quote as incontrovertible evidence. It is simply an assumption. Since their endocast model can only determine skull capacity, are we now to conclude that they believe that larger adults are smarter than smaller adults?
The evolutionary history of the human brain shows primarily a gradually bigger brain relative to body size during the evolutionary path from early primates to hominins and finally to Homo sapiens
Also assumed (but not proven) is the mantra that early primates evolved into humans. I do not grant this assumption upon which they rely for their story to be true. How can it be incontrovertible evidence if their premises are packed full of unproven assumptions?
This can be visualized
They mean imagined. Next they try to escape the problem imposed by the assumption that brain size related to increased intelligence due to the politically incorrect nature of the assumption
Consequently, the authors argue that the notion of an increase in brain size being related to advances in cogntion (sp) needs to be re-thought in light of global variation in brain size, as the brains of many modern humans with normal cogntive (sp) capacities are only 400g/ml larger than chimpanzees
Notice how since the actual evidence of the brains themselves were not preserved in fossils. Those who assume that evolution can “incontrovertibly” produce human brains are (like the empty skulls of the fossils) devoid of actual evidence.
It is also important to note that the measure of brain mass or volume, seen as cranial capacity, or even relative brain size, which is brain mass that is expressed as a percentage of body mass, are not a measure of intelligence, use, or function of regions of the brain.Total neurons, however, also do not indicate a higher ranking in cognitive abilities. Elephants have a higher number of total neurons (257 billion) compared to humans (100 billion). Relative brain size, overall mass, and total number of neurons are only a few metrics that help scientists follow the evolutionary trend of increased brain to body ratio through the hominin phylogeny
They consider it important to note that neither higher capacity of brain size nor total number of neurons increase cognitive abilities. So why do they assume that the fossil skulls contained brains with less intelligence/cognition than current brains? The evidence is missing…all that’s left is assumptions
Their findings imply…It also suggests…What is the least controversial is
The last paragraph in that section includes the 3 phrases from above. None of those sound like “incontrovertible” evidence to me. It sounds like they are having to assume some things, infer some things and suggest some things…but where’s the evidence itself?
The more convoluted the surface of the brain is, the greater the surface area of the cortex which allows for an expansion of cortex. It is the most evolutionarily advanced part of the brain. Greater surface area of the brain is linked to higher intelligence as is the thicker cortex but there is an inverse relationship—the thicker the cortex, the more difficult it is for it to fold. In adult humans, thicker cerebral cortex has been linked to higher intelligence
Again, those paying attention will see that the very substance that they need to verify their claim of evolution creating the brain: brain surface, cortex, thicker cortex ARE ALL COMPLETELY MISSING. From the start Wikipedia authors admit that the brain is not preserved in the fossils, so the very evidence in question is missing! It’s not just that this Wikipedia article is NOT incontrovertible, it’s laughably impotent to explain the evolution of human brains at all
If they actually wanted to show how evolution was able to produce human brains, they would have to have brains of creatures that they can PROVE are indeed ancestors of humans and show that natural selection acting on random mutations produced human brains. This Wikipedia article did not do any of that. It was empty speculation
If anyone would like to read an account of the fossils without the Darwinian infection, read Sanford’s Contested Bones and Lubenow’s Bones of Contention
God created mankind in his image. God’s Word is clear and we can trust that revelation, so evolution is false. When Adam sinned, his descendants and all of creation fell under the curse of sin: death, suffering, and thorns. As was promised in Genesis 3:15, God the Son (Jesus) became incarnate as a descendant of Adam and (where Adam failed) Jesus perfectly kept the law. Jesus gave his life to pay for the sins (by taking upon Himself all the curses of sin: death, suffering, thorns) of all those who would turn from their sin and humbly submit to the authority of Jesus.
Deductive proof? That sounds pretty strong. There are dozens of arguments for the truth of Christianity. My friends at Theologetics have We already know that revelation from God is irrefutable. And we know that all evidence corroborates what God has revealed, but a deductive proof for Christianity might be seen by some to be beyond the ability of Christians to declare.
First, let’s start with some definitions. What is deductive reasoning?
Deductive reasoning does not rely on generalizations as opposed to Inductive reasoning, which can only present a probable conclusion based on the particular evidence given. Deductive reasoning gives an argument that provides a conclusion that is certain if the premises are valid and true.
Eli Ayala recently hosted Jon Kaus from Christ Church Twin Cities on his YouTube channel and Jon Kaus briefly explained his work on the deductive proof of Christianity in part 1 and part 2. After watching this video, I searched out Jon Kaus’s videos on his Christ Church Twin Cities website. I was able to find where Kaus presented his arguments in 8 conference sessions with affiliated slideshows. These slideshows are available as links on the respective YouTube videos in the link below
Based on Mr. Kaus’s work, his slideshows, and presentations, here is an organized representation of the axioms, theorems, and conclusion.
Most (if not all) of the work that Kaus has done is based on the work of Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. It has been an awesome experience learning what Kaus has been able to put together and I hope you too enjoy this fantastic work
ApoloJedi 