Academic freedom for creation explanation

The Pacer ^ | March 17,2009 | Reuben Kendall

[SeekAndFind]

As a freshman, I haven't been at UT-Martin for very long. But some problems are so obvious that they don't take very long to notice.

In my studies I quickly realized that when it comes to the theory of evolution, Darwin is the only one who gets to answer questions-or ask them.

I want to question this theory-to test it; check its credentials. And I want honest, thoughtful answers to my questions, not pre-formulated quips and deflections. But I have learned that if I'm not an evolutionist, my questions don't get credited, or even heard.

When I ask why theories such as intelligent design are discredited so off-handedly, I typically hear, "Because intelligent design involves metaphysics, but evolution is based only on facts." Well, I am not so sure.

Obviously, Darwin observed mutation and selection processes within the finch species of the Galapagos. But was he really seeing the extreme mutation and selection that would be required to make a bird out of a dinosaur?

It seems to me Darwin's idea of increasingly specialized life descending from simple, single-celled creatures, was entirely conjectural.

The theory might have had its roots in meticulous observation, but considering what we now know, the theory no longer seems to adequately explain such things as biodiversity and the origins of life. Never mind that paleontologists have yet to uncover the majority of "common ancestors."

Never mind that textbooks must be rewritten every time a greater understanding of genetics tells us that birds are actually reptilians; that humans are closer kin to sand dollars than ants or bees.

Never mind the leap of faith required to explain how incredibly complex single-celled life could have possibly developed from a floating mass of random proteins and minerals.

The scientific community assures me that evolution will undoubtedly produce answers to all these problems. But in the meantime, nobody else is allowed to say anything. If you ask me, this isn't academic freedom. True academic freedom would look like a variety of scientists, with differing opinions, having open and respectful debates about their ideas.

It would look like evolutionists actually being willing to learn what intelligent design advocates think, instead of dismissing them off-hand as religious fanatics or Creationists.

On April 6, a non-religious, non-political student organization will be hosting Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled" on campus.

If you are an evolutionist, I encourage you to come and see it and prove that reason, respect, and open minds still factor into today's science.

[Buck W.]

“...if I’m not an evolutionist, my questions don’t get credited, or even heard.”

I assume that you’re referring to a science class. If so, and if you are challenging evolution on the basis of faith, then you should not be surprised.

[cartervt2k]

I would ask, no demand, evolution to answer the crucial questions to their argument: how microorganisms evolve into people, how lifeless matter became life and where that matter came from in the first place. Taking their argument at face value because they don’t want to deal in metaphysics is bogus. If they can’t prove intelligent design is false, then it remains a possibility, and, if intellugent design is true, then its basis is no longer in theology alone.

[GourmetDan]

"I assume that you’re referring to a science class. If so, and if you are challenging evolution on the basis of faith, then you should not be surprised."

Yes, SAF.

Only faith in philosphical naturalism is allowed in 'science' class. This faith is based on 2 fallacies.

First is the fallacy where P is assumed since P implies Q, Q implies P, and Q is observed. This is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Second is the fallacy where philosophical naturalism is assumed because natural laws exist. This is the fallacy of false cause or non sequitur.

Those two fallacies are all that are needed to justify ignoring all potential causes that do not assume philosophical naturalism 'a priori'.

[tacticalogic]

I would ask, no demand, evolution to answer the crucial questions to their argument: how microorganisms evolve into people, how lifeless matter became life and where that matter came from in the first place.

Why just evolutionary biology? Why not demand that every discipline either explain where any matter or energy they deal with came from, or stop teaching?

[Buck W.]

“If they can’t prove intelligent design is false, then it remains a possibility,...”

Evolution IS intelligent design!

[Buck W.]

How weak your Christian faith must be to find solace in such logical fallacies. Such is the basis of all creation “science”, unfortunately. Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

[lucky american]

The one question Darwin couldn’t answer. What came first the chicken or the egg?

[Blood of Tyrants]

There war whole books written on how a single cell in our body works and all of them put together still can’t fully explain it and we are supposed to believe that we accidentally evolved from non-living bits of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen?

[OneWingedShark]

What?
Why are you saying his faith is weak when he’s pointing out logical fallacies in the current mindset? He’s said nothing about his own faith, beliefs, or opinions.

In other words, what you’ve done is a cousin of the fallacy of saying “you’re wrong, so I must be right.”

[cartervt2k]

Why just evolutionary biology? Why not demand that every discipline either explain where any matter or energy they deal with came from, or stop teaching?

You know, I can wrap my brain around the difficult concept that maybe matter always existed. But, how do lifeless solids and gasses spawn life? If they can explain that, I'll start to listen to their argument.

[Buck W.]

Not at all.

As I read the post, the original poster claimed that science follows a certain “logical” process. He was wrong in his specifics.

[tacticalogic]

You know, I can wrap my brain around the difficult concept that maybe matter always existed. But, how do lifeless solids and gasses spawn life? If they can explain that, I'll start to listen to their argument.

Is it just lifeless solids and gasses spawing life, or the existence of life with the ability to evolve?

[RubberChickenGirl]

I am in full support of you. Hoping for an excellent turn out and open minds.

My son is doing an Origins course including works by Dembski and Behe and others supporting ID and, of course, Darwin and Dawkins supporting THE MONOLITHIC IMMOVABLE TRUTH. We are doing this at home since such open exploration of ALL possibilities is not welcome in the classroom. All perspectives on origins work with the same facts, but come at them from different presumptions and end up with vastly different conclusions. All sides require *faith* in the end imo. It is equally improbable to the human mind that all things came from nothing spontaneously w/o forethought(whence the elements?) or that all things came from an Intelligent Source. One side won’t admit this.

Historically, the scientific community always flips its whig at upstarts (and ends up wrong more often than not).

[leonid]

There is no base for "creationism science" or "intelligent design," so how can people teach it if they have no material or start? How can you even test children on ID?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have failed to find any theories, research papers, explanations, science publications, or even minute proof for the creationist/ID claims. Before this century, people have always seemed to be fine with teaching these types of things in a theology or social sciences class next to other religious myths. I find it troubling that people are so quick at painting on accusations of hidden agendas and motives like scientists have all banded together to fight religion and provide opposing views in the name of satan. This could not be further from the truth. If you feel that the science community is maliciously spreading lies and deceit, then stop trusting their medicines and technology. It is that simple!


Scientists love finding problems in their work.. Scientists of all religions, all over the world. Why would anyone sane love having to do tremendous amounts of work and experiments..? Well, if it is an important finding.. they often become famous and get grant money thrown at them. It gets on my nerves that people take a good majority of modern science with as much seriousness as they would any pseudo-science like homeopathy or the scientology crap. Theories of all kinds are published for the sole purposes of being scrutinized and teaching others.

And why can't evolution be a form of intelligent design, anyway? It sure looks like it to me. I don't know about your God, but my God is powerful and smart enough to make a beautiful process such as genetic evolution. A process so beautiful and amazing that I am surprised more and more Christians don't openly accept it with wide arms. It just shows that my God is an awesome God and can do anything, it strengthens my faith.

If evolution weren't at least partly true, we wouldn't have domesticated animals or new varieties of plants and fruits. There wouldn't be different variations of human physical features. We wouldn't have found all these fossils of creatures long gone. If evolution weren't somewhat true, man wouldn't have been able to genetically modify a potato to grow hair or rat neurons to turn bright fluorescent colors.

Many witness evolutionary changes very easily in simple organisms but fail to step back and take a look at the bigger picture. The flu virus mutates quite often. The main method of destruction for the AIDS virus is the fact that it can mutate very quickly to evade our defenses. Look at nearly any human genome and you might be surprised to see that our DNA has genes which aren't even important to us, but serve as vital proteins in other organisms. Genetic mutations that viruses have implanted or others that have passed with us from our ancestors fill a good majority of our inactive DNA.


When one sits down and looks at the evidence we have so far it is very hard to say evolution is not an ongoing process. When creationist advocates and scholars decide to sit down and compose texts describing the methods, proof, importance, origin, and general structure of intelligent design.. then and only then will it even start to be taken seriously in the academic field..
The only real "facts" about creationism now is.. what? The Bible's divinity itself and a scholarly monk who "calculated" the age of the Earth from it?


Could someone please try to explain to me, in a logical manner, of the proof we have so far of ID?

I don't care if I get criticized for my beliefs, they won't change. Those of you who do or even think about judging me should already know that prejudice is evil in origin and hate is equal to murder in the eyes of our Lord.

[leonid]

Historically, the scientific community always flips its whig at upstarts (and ends up wrong more often than not).

This is the reason science has been successful for as long as we have been using it. It gives us room to make mistakes or overlook things and, then when they are observed/noticed, try to fit new findings in with the current theory/ies.

Creationism is nothing new, my friend. Many religious people have somehow branded certain areas of research as "evil" or "immoral" simply because it opposes what they believe in, which is kind-of hypocritical when you think about how Americans strongly dislike discrimination and general close-mindedness.

Obviously science has done plenty for us or we would not be paying so much for it. You need to take a second to count your blessings and stop acting like the scientific community is out to the hurt religion with a hidden agenda in their belt. We take so much science for granted and it really is a shame. Knowledge is power, a gift from God.. We would not have a brain had he not intended it for use. :)

[CzarChasm]

I usually avoid these threads, because they degenerate very quickly into chaos and absurdity, and endless demands for more and more detailed "proof" that simply doesn't exist yet.

You seem sincere, so I though I'd give it a try:

• A scientific theory has to be falsifiable. It has to make predictions that can be tested via experiments or observations.

This means that it must be possible to at least imagine some test or experiment that could produce a result that disproves some or all of the theory. It also means that theories cannot be proved. Theories can amass a large amount of supporting evidence, but they can never be proved beyond question.
So what does this mean to you? Two things:

1. By scientific standards, evolution is a theory, and will always be "just" a theory.
2. Creationism/Intelligent Design do not qualify as scientific theories, because they are not falsifiable. They make no predictions that can be tested. At least, not yet.

Evolutionary theory is incomplete. So are relavitiy, gravitation, quantum mechanisms, and a lot of other well-supported scientific theories.

Theology/dogma is man's interpretation of God's word. Men are flawed. So where theology/dogma conflict with observed scientific reality, perhaps the interpretation should be re-examined.

Good luck with your studies!

[FormerRep]

Ping.

I’ve tried on many posts to explain why theology and science co-exist but do not trump each other. Science is about observations and experimentation. Theology is faith. Trust in both but don’t try to make one justify the other.

[SeekAndFind]

I believe there are two subtle alternative definitions of the word, “Falsifiable,” and much of the debate between creationists and evolutionists revolves around these definitions.

* Ideas are falsifiable when there is some conceivable experiment to test them, but the test may or may not be possible today. This was the view of Karl Popper;

* Ideas are falsifiable when there is some experiment which can be conducted under present scientific knowledge to test them.

If we adopt the first definition, an idea is falsifiable if some conceivable experiment could test it, then we run into a major problem: Which experiments are conceivable?

First, if the history of science has shown anything, it’s that scientists are capable of devising new and ingenious experiments to test ideas. For thousands of years, the Greek and Pagan geocentric Ptolemaic system was adopted by the Church as truth, until Copernicus and Galileo found means to test it. An experiment may be inconceivable one day and conceivable the next. The only difference is the presence of a scientist to conceive of a new experiment to solve the problem.

Second, the ability to conceive is a very subjective and imaginative ability. One person may “conceive a possible experiment” while another may not. Thus our definition of which experiments are “conceivable” or not depends entirely on our imagination. It does not depend on objective facts at all. For example:

I can conceive of an experiment to test for creation vs. evolution. I can build a time machine, travel 6,000 years in the past, and see if there is a Garden east of Eden with two naked people in it (as predicted by creationism), or countless tribes of nomadic men and women settling into agriculture. This would certainly falsify creationism or evolutionism once and for all. But the experiment cannot be conducted, because I don’t have a time machine. Consequently, although this experiment is conceivable, the ideas are still not falsifiable, because the experiment cannot be conducted.

Clearly, defining ideas as falsifiable when they could “conceivably” be falsified is not a useful definition, for two reasons:

* First, scientists conceive of new experiments that were once inconceivable on a daily basis, thus making unfalsifiable ideas falsifiable. Unfalsifiable ideas are in fact the lifeblood of science, because they are the fuel that drives the experiments of tomorrow.

* Second, the definition is not useful because it leaves the criteria for “science vs. non-science” entirely in the imagination of the scientist. For while many experiments may be conceived, they are not useful unless they can be conducted.

This leaves us with the second definition: “Ideas are falsifiable when they are capable of being tested under today’s scientific knowledge.” This leaves us with a much better defined list of ideas which are falsifiable and those which are unfalsifiable. Falsifiable ideas can be tested today, and unfalsifiable ideas cannot be tested today. There is no ambiguity. Nothing is left to our imagination. The experiment either can be conducted or cannot be conducted.

This leads us to a second point: Unfalsifiable ideas are not necessarily false. We simply can’t test them. If we adopt the first definition of falsifiability, that we must be able to “conceive” of an experiment to test the idea, then unfalsifiable ideas are useless, because they can never be tested and thus never become science.

But if we adopt the second definition of falsifiability, that we must be able to perform the experiment to test the idea, then we acknowledge that things which are not testable today may become testable tomorrow, and the goal of science becomes to expand the range of human knowledge by finding ways to test what is not yet testable. Under this definition, unfalsifiable ideas become the lifeblood of science, because it is from them that new experiments are tested, new discoveries made, and new science developed.

So, when we define as falsifiable ideas which may “conceivably be tested,” we call things unfalsifiable and unscientific when we cannot “conceive” of an experiment to test them, and call things falsifiable and scientific when we can conceive of such an experiment. But no actual experiments need be conducted. Therefore there is no objective test to determine whether or not an idea is scientific. The whole process takes place in our imagination, and is subject to the scope of our imagination. And if a person is incapable of imagining a test for an idea, then that idea becomes eternally unfalsifiable and unscientific, never to be tested. Ideas which may be true are tagged as unscientific simply because scientists cannot yet test them.

In the end, a superficial definition of falsifiability is used to exclude those ideas which, although possibly true, do not fit into the scientist’s “paradigm.”

But when we define as falsifiable those ideas which may “be tested today,” we call things unfalsifiable when we cannot test them and falsifiable when we can test them. Consequently, there is an objective test to determine which are falsifiable and which are not; it does not depend on our imagination, it depends on objective science. Further, unfalsifiable ideas are not seen as a roadblock to science, but as the future of science, as scientists develop and improve their ability to experiment, and turn unfalsifiable ideas into falsifiable ones.

[GourmetDan]

"How weak your Christian faith must be to find solace in such logical fallacies."

How weak your critical-thinking skills must be to find solace in ignoring logical fallacies when they form the basis of a competing philosophy masquerading as empirically-based reason.

" Such is the basis of all creation “science”, unfortunately."

Failing to recognize that any 'theory' based on logical fallacies is actually based on faith ultimately leads to perfectly nonsensical statements offered in complete sincerity and utter stupidity. Such is the basis of 'science' based in philosophical naturalism, unfortunately.

"Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible."

To say the evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity is to say that faith in philosophical naturalism is perfectly compatible with faith in a supernatural creator. IOW, perfect nonsense.

[CzarChasm]

interesting and thoughtful, thank you for that

i specifically added the phrase "at least imagine" with regards to experiments/tests because, as you pointed out, impossible things today become feasible tomorrow and routine the day after. So the first definition of falsifiable is the scientifically accurate one, to the best of my knowledge; the second definition would be more accurately characterized as "presently feasible".

For example, cosmological theory predicted a uniform distribution of low-energy microwave radiation all over the universe as the leftover "footprint" of the Big Bang, but this could not be tested until we had the technology to build a space probe to measure it.

It's one thing to design an experiment that requires a more precise version of an existing device, but quite another that presupposes a device that does not exist and may never exist - so i must point out that your proposed experiment relies on a time-machine, which is another conjecture with no serious (falsifiable) scientific theory to support it. So now there are two problems instead of just one! ;-)

[Buck W.]

Of course evolution is a theory. I refer you to post 17, an excellent side-by-side comparison of evolution (science) and creation (faith). Both coexist beautifully. To blindly diminish science in the name of faith exposes a terribly weak faith. The majority of Christians (myself included) suffer from no such weakness.

[GourmetDan]

"Of course evolution is a theory."

Of course you miss the point that a 'theory' supported by logical fallacies is, in fact, faith.

"I refer you to post 17, an excellent side-by-side comparison of evolution (science) and creation (faith). Both coexist beautifully."

I refer you again to the fact that any theory supported by fallacy is not science, but faith. Opposing faiths do not 'coexist beautifully' except in the thoughts of the double-minded.

"To blindly diminish science in the name of faith exposes a terribly weak faith."

To blindly refuse to recognize that the fallacy of affirming the consequent and the fallacy of false cause (non sequitur) are the foundation of your appeal to 'science' after the point was made directly to you is astounding. It appears to result from a near absence of critical-thinking ability.

"The majority of Christians (myself included) suffer from no such weakness."

Adding the fallacy of appeal to popularity to the previously identified fallacies does not strengthen your position.

[Buck W.]

Thanks God creationism is not taught in public school science classes. Unfortunately, the creationist’s tortured, weak-in-faith defense of his position is presented by the media as representative of the viewpoint of all Christians. The majority of us, therefore, appear feeble-minded by association, and we don’t like it.

[Tax-chick]

Thanks God creationism is not taught in public school science classes.

Yes, I'm sure that's why our public schools have such excellent results in international comparisons on science education, and why so many of our students go on to higher education in physics, chemistry, and biology.

[GourmetDan]

"Thanks God creationism is not taught in public school science classes."

You thank God that philosophical naturalism is taught in public school science classes even after you know that it is based on multiple, logical fallacies?

"Unfortunately, the creationist’s tortured, weak-in-faith defense of his position is presented by the media as representative of the viewpoint of all Christians."

Unfortunately, it appears that you haven't understood a single point about the multiple logical fallacies underlying the theory of evolution and apparently can't recognize a complete lack of critical-thinking skills either. And accepting the media's definition of a position is typically not consistent with the reality of the position.

"The majority of us, therefore, appear feeble-minded by association, and we don’t like it."

I note your repeat of the fallacy of appeal to popularity after having it explained to you. While I tend to agree with your conclusion, I don't think the association is the problem...

[Buck W.]

Wow—what a stretch! If creationism were taught as science, do you really believe that US students would be better prepared?

[Buck W.]

“You thank God that philosophical naturalism is taught in public school science classes even after you know that it is based on multiple, logical fallacies? “

The point is that it is NOT based on the fallacies that you assert.

[Buck W.]

“Unfortunately, it appears that you haven’t understood a single point about the multiple logical fallacies underlying the theory of evolution...”

Unfortunately, I don’t believe that you know what a “logical fallacy” is. Just because you disagree with a point doesn’t make it fallacious.

Really, stop taking talking points from answersingenesis.com.

[DoctorMichael]

Whining Creationist Echochamber Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........bump........bump........bump........bump........bump.........ump...........ump.........mp.......p................

[Tax-chick]

I believe that both creation and evolution are irrelevant - particularly at the public school level - to the vast majority of successful science education, which involves the memorization and use of verifiable facts as well as MATH.

[Darwin Fish]

Please join another political party, or start your own. Anti-evolutionists, literal bible creationists, and young-earthers give the pubbie party a deserved black eye, and subject it to ridicule.

Like it or not, The pubbie party gets mocked (rightly so, IMHO) for being against science because of these Art Bell maroons.

Flame away. See tagline.

[Tax-chick]

See tagline.

And Noah Webster invented modern English orthography, but you seem to consider yourself an exception.

[Oztrich Boy]

But I have learned that if I'm not an evolutionist, my questions don't get credited, or even heard.

• "Where you there?"
• "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
• "If Darwin says one species changes into another, why don't we ever see a creature that is half cockroach, half mouse?"

[Texas Songwriter]

....logical fallacies....

Please explain how 'logic' evolved from dead, inorganic matter. Please explain how 'reason' evolved as a result of Darwinism.

[Buck W.]

I have no argument with you on that!

[Buck W.]

It’s impossible to argue with a poet, so I won’t even try!

[BrandtMichaels]

Check out creationscience.com. Dr. Walt Brown has made his creation book available for free online. 3 parts w/ the 1st dedicated to what is proven (micro-evolution) and what isn’t (macro-evolution or species evolving into higher life forms).

Dr. Brown’s online book details his hydroplate theory (part II) regarding the cataclismic movement of the continents. Dr. Brown originally worked as an evolutionary scientist. His credentials are impeccable and his book provides references to most everything he asserts even though it is mostly presented in laymans terms.

He also includes much of the math involved in his estimates. Part 3 is a question and answer section. It is the most complete and highly detailed/researched for any creation science reference.

[Tax-chick]

I have no argument with you on that!

That's unusual. Many seem to think that Darwinian orthodoxy is all a "science" student needs, while calculus and the periodic table are just distractions.

[Rockhound]

“If Darwin says one species changes into another, why don’t we ever see a creature that is half cockroach, half mouse?”

I beg to differ. Take a tour of Congress and you will see plenty of them, although I don’t think it is fair to blame Darwin.

[cartervt2k]

Well, I would like an explanation for that too, but how does something come from nothing? If matter always existed, how did life begin to exist?

[GourmetDan]

"The point is that it is NOT based on the fallacies that you assert."

Oh, it's definitely based on those fallacies.

If you don't assume that the existence of natural physical laws translates into philosophical naturalism, then there's no need for evolution, long-ages or the big bang.

[GourmetDan]

"Unfortunately, I don’t believe that you know what a “logical fallacy” is. Just because you disagree with a point doesn’t make it fallacious."

Unfortunately, I don't believe that you know what a logical fallacy is. Just because you don't think something fallacious doesn't mean it's not.

"Really, stop taking talking points from answersingenesis.com."

Really, stop taking talking points from talk.origins.

[Buck W.]

Ah, yes...when pressed, the creationist wheels out the heavy artillery: he repeats a contrary point or accusation and then delivers a mightily indignant, “Oh, yeah?”

Really, this is an issue of faith, and you’re not going to take my word for it that your faith is weak. I am a devout Christian and I believe that God would be most disappointed if we didn’t use the brains that he gave us to figure out how he got us here. Evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity.

[GourmetDan]

"Ah, yes...when pressed, the creationist wheels out the heavy artillery: he repeats a contrary point or accusation and then delivers a mightily indignant, “Oh, yeah?”"

Just reflecting your arguments back to you. Apparently you thought them quite good when you proposed them but lacking when they came back to you almost verbatim. Interesting thought processes that the double-minded use.

"Really, this is an issue of faith, and you’re not going to take my word for it that your faith is weak."

Really, this is an issue of faith, and you're not going to take my word for it that you are double-minded.

"I am a devout Christian and I believe that God would be most disappointed if we didn’t use the brains that he gave us to figure out how he got us here."

I am a devout Christian and I believe that God would be most disappointed if we put the word of men over His Word that tells us how He got us here. (Do you get it yet?)

"Evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity."

To say the evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity is to say that faith in philosophical naturalism is perfectly compatible with faith in a supernatural creator. IOW, perfect nonsense.

[Texas Songwriter]

It’s impossible to argue with a poet, so I won’t even try!

Think of me as something other than a poet, though I am known to write poems as well as songs.

Think of me as.....a student and a farmer.

Since you brought up logic, let us examine logic. Now, it seems to me that scientific method is a method to serarch for truth by observation and repetition of an experiment. However to make valid an observation and the repeatable outcomes requires one to utilize certain philosophical tools. These tools are reason, logic, mathematics, and First Principles. None of these tools can be proven by applying scientific method. However, even you, will agree that logic is a tool of the scientist. (If not, advise me otherwise, and I will go back to basics). If you say science is the only objective truth, then you have just claimed something(science) is an objective truth not a scientific truth and thus you invalidate your arguement. That arguement defeats itself.

If one states that materialist darwinism is the explaination for logic, truth, and reason, then reason is, itself, completely impossible. The reason is because this makes mental processes (thinking) nothing more than a chemical raction occurring in the cerebral cortex. There is no reason to believe that anythi;ng is true including the theory of materialism. Chemicals cannot evaluate anything.

So the Darwinist, who claims to be the arbiter of truth, reason and logic have made truth, reason and logic impossible by theirdevotion to materialsim. So even if the darwinist and materialist onrare, extrememly rare occasions correct, they give us no reason to believe anything they say, because reason, logic, and truth is made impossible by their very devotion to darwinian evolution. Moreover, the darwinsit assertion makes reason a impossible, but that we should rely on reason alone cannot be justified by darwinian theory. The reason is because reason is made impossible in a darwinan worldview, and requires faith

Either our ability to reason and apply logic and apprehend the truth comes from a dead, brute, materialsit, darwinist world or it came from a prexisting intelligence. If there is another possibility please let me know. To believe either requires faith. We say faith, because it contradicts truth apprehended by scientific method, and in the darwinists world there is no other way to apprehend the truth or use logic and reason.

Materialist darwinists can no more explain reason, logic and truth than it can explain the origin of life. Materialism is just not reasonable.

[Buck W.]

A tip—when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! Have a nice day.

[tacticalogic]

Good questions, all.

Does the conventional "big bang" theory even posit that matter has always existed? They estimate an age of the Universe, so they're implicitly arguing that before that, it didn't exist.

[GourmetDan]

"A tip—when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! Have a nice day."

A tip - smugness is no substitute for argument.

Have a great day!

[Texas Songwriter]

I wish you would answer my questions and address my comments to you rather than pick on GourmetDan. I am only a part-time poet. I really am a farmer/rancher and have done a few other things in my younger days. I am sure I might learn something from you. After all, I get dirt underneath my fingernails almost every day. I am sure you think I have little or no understanding about Darwinian materialism and the theory you are such a devotee to.