Posted: October 17, 2013 in Atheism, Darwinism/Intelligent Design, Evolution, Existence of God, Logic, Philosophy, Reason, Science
Tags: argument from ignorance, darwinism, evolution of the gaps, god of the gaps
Well here we go ladies and gents. Yet another piece of Darwinian/atheist imbecility must be exposed for what it really is.
Will this kind of thing ever end? Not until atheists finally admit
that their position -its not merely a “lack” as they foolishly pretend
to themselves- is void of intelligence and in fact annihilates
intelligence itself since atheism cannot have true rationality.
In atheism all rationality is the end product of completely non
rational processes and of course is an “accident”. Under atheist
stupidity, rationality is just electrochemical movement in meat. As
Francis Crick himself said,
The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense
of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the
behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated
molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing
but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most
people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” -(p. 3)
-Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search
for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
Atheism says that your so-called rationality, your logic, your
reasoning faculties; all together is “nothing but a pack of neurons.
Well, Sir Crick has passed on to the other realm that is much more solid
than this one and has been obliged to answer for his crimes against the
Deity, so we can’t ask him the obvious question, “Why should we listen
to what a pack of neurons is saying?”, or “How can a pack of neurons be
true or false?”.
Other interesting questions like this could and should be posed to
atheists as often as it takes to get the message, the logical
conclusions and implications of their inane position, into their
incredibly stubborn heads.
In any case, we must take a quick and dirty look at one Darwinism’s
chief complaints against both creationism and Intelligent Design (these
are not the same).
Often when theists or even deists point out to Darwinists that their
theory cannot account for the intricacies and functional complexities
found in every living thing, they will tell you that you’re committing a
logical fallacy. Specifically they claim this type of statement is a
“God of the gaps argument”. This simply means that, because you can’t
explain how something occurred, you simply invoke God as the answer.
God fills in the gap where knowledge of how is.
God is used to explain what evolutionism can’t explain. This is of
course a form of “argument from ignorance”. And believe me, Darwinians
everywhere are quick to parrot their fave priests that have told them
this, over and over and over. Here I would love to start a nice
discussion of how virtually every amateur and professional Darwinist in
the world is little more than a parrot. They are always parroting what
they were told in school, in their temples (universities), on their fave
web sites, in books etc etc.
They do not tend to think well at all for themselves, so, having been
forced into the standard Darwinian mantra, they simply parrot what they
were told by their priests and pastors. This is because they either
cannot or will not think such things through for themselves. So, they
need indoctrination and counselling from their priests to know what to
believe.
Well, I would love to really get into that little delicacy, just for fun, but I don’t feel like it.
So, on to the infamous parroted “God if the gaps” accusations.
First of all, arguments of the pattern:
“Evolution cannot explain this therefore God did it” arguments, are
almost never used by any informed theist and never by any of the major
Intelligent Design or creationist debaters, scientists etc on this.
People like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Douglas Marks, Jay
Richards etc, do not use “gap” arguments at all. What they really do is
argue from a simplified form of “statistical mechanics” (for lack of a
better term). This means that when an IDist says anything like, “no
evolutionary evidence exist for this, no known evolutionary pathway
exists to explain this, no known mechanism exists that can accomplish
this”, They are not saying “you can’t explain it, therefore God must
have done it”.
That is simply and categorically false.
They are saying that 1) there is no evidence at all that evolution
did this, but 2) there is enormous evidence that Darwinian evolution
cannot do this, and there is enormous evidence that
only
intelligent agents can produce algorithmic, prescriptive information
that is found everywhere in biological systems. Therefore, the best
explanation is not evoltuon but intelligent origin.
Very, very few creationists or IDists will simply say, “God did it
and that’s it that’s all, no need for further research”. In recent
years, I’ve never heard any of them say anything even remotely like
that! So, when highly misinformed and disingenuous Darwinian fanatics
claim that this is what they’re saying, they are lying, incapable of
thinking straight, seriously not listening or all of the above.
In my personal experience it is ALWAYS the last 2 options. and sometimes the first as well.
Again, what are IDists saying? Based on the principles of statistical
mechanics, they’re saying that we already know that such mechanical
sophistication and algorithmic information
cannot arise by
chance no matter how much time is allotted. The probability of such
machinery and circuitry being constructed, with the plans for making the
parts and the assembly instructions for putting them together with all
this being algorithmically encoded in DNA, is so astronomically small
that it may as well be considered impossible. It is in fact,
statistically impossible by ANY known random or stochastic process
including mutations plus selection.
So, this has nothing at all to do with “gap” arguments but is merely
stating the obvious based on the laws of probability! Something
Darwinian biologists tend to be uniquely inapt at using or even
understanding.
Designists are not saying, “we can’t see how this happened therefore
God id it” at all; on the contrary! They are saying, “the laws of
probability”, thermodynamics and physics do not allow any purposeless,
unguided process to create this kind of integrated functionality.
That is a
very different thing from a mere gap argument. So
in fact, they are not arguing from ignorance but from well documented
knowledge! Knowledge of proven mathematics applied to the mechanics of
biological machinery.
See?
That is NOT a gap or ignorance based argument at all. It is a solid
scientific empirical method being used to calculate whether nature can
even do such things. When facing the odds of events that have estimated
with between 1 in 10^20 to 1 in 10^130 to even worse odds, the obvious
answer is that blind evolution could not have done it, no matter how
much time you allot!
Secondly, there is a humongous hypocrisy at work among the Darwinists when they foolishly choose to use this rebuttal.
Notice that Darwinists have NEVER, not even once, provided a viable
mutation/selection pathway for the existence of even the smallest living
things. This means that the ONLY way they can claim that any living
thing evolved is through speculation and conjecture -most of the time
just wishful thinking and vivid imaginations are all they have.
For example, how does Darwinism explain the incredible integrated circuitry of vision, the eye?
They invent, yes invent, out of thin air, a story!
If you’ve seen the perfectly naive, childishly simplistic
explanations given by Darwinists for the origins of sight and eyes you
know what I’m talking about it. Even the scenarios given by so-called
professional scientists. There simply are no viable, serious Darwinian
pathways for vision and eyes. None. Not even remotely close.
Their explanation is always the same – an imaginary pathway -less
than 100 steps (rotflmao)- that they think may have, could have, must
have etc., been the real evolutionary one. So how about evidence for
such naive suppositions -they’re ALWAYS ridiculously naive- on how
something may have happened by evolution? Nope. Don’t need any real
empirical evidence.
Really? Why not?
Because
they simply invoke evolution of the gaps!
They do this everywhere, “evolution did it”. Oh, sorry, they use
slightly different terms but the answer is always the same – evolution
did it!
In other words, Darwinists are the WORST offenders of “gap”, ignorance-based arguments! They
never
have any viable mutational-selection pathways to explain anything but
the very very trivial! So, without a grain of empirical evidence that
really does explain how vision systems developed without a “seeing”
intelligence, they simply claim -loudly and with much bombast and
pompous fury against any other theory, “evolution did it!”
“Proof?”
“We don’t need proof!! We KNOW evolution did it!”
“How do you know this, without proof?”
“Because no God exists! “
Oops. There you have it. The cat is out of the bag. The whole
system is 99% religion based. Metaphysical Naturalism. In other words.
The religion of atheism.
Don’t believe this? Well then you’re being incredibly naive and demonstrating a very profound ignorance.
Just to help you out:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of
its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its
extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of
the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we
have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that
the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a
material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that
we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an
apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying
to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we
cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis
Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in
anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any
moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may
happen.” – Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The
New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard
Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard U.
Wow, if that isn’t clear enough, nothing is. So, Darwinists are in
fact religious adepts of Naturalism (materialism), a very very old
heathen religion.
Therefore it must be illegal, in the USA, to teach Darwinism is public schools. So why isn’t it?
