The Validity of Thought 2 -- Science Disproves Evolution

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

By destroying the validity of ideas, evolution undercuts even the idea of evolution. �Science itself makes no sense if the scientific mind is itself no more than the product of irrational material forces� (b).

A related issue is the flexibility and redundancy of the human brain, which evolution or natural selection would not produce. For example, every year brain surgeons successfully remove up to half of a person�s brain. The remaining half gradually takes over functions of the removed half. Also, brain functions are often regained after portions of the brain are accidently destroyed. Had humans evolved, such accidents would have been fatal before these amazing capabilities developed. Darwin was puzzled by the phenomenal capability of the brain (c).

Thoughts are not physical, although they use physical things, such as the brain, oxygen, electrons, and sensory inputs. The mind thinks, but the brain, like a powerful computer, can�t really �think.� Nor can any physical substance. Albert Einstein put his finger on this profound issue:

�I am convinced that ... the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all�when viewed logically�the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences. ... we have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf�logically unbridgeable�which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions� (d).

C. S. Lewis put it in another way:
�If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees� (e).

So Who or what provided humans (and to a much lesser extent animals) with the ability and freedom to think? It certainly wasn�t dead matter, chance, evolution, or time.

b . Phillip Johnson, �The Demise of Naturalism,� World, 3 April 2004, p.�38.

c. �Behind Darwin�s discomfiture [on how the human brain evolved] was the dawning realization that the evolution of the brain vastly exceeded the needs of prehistoric man. This is, in fact, the only example in existence where a species was provided with an organ that it still has not learned how to use.� Richard M. Restak, The Brain: The Last Frontier (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979), p.�59.

d. Albert Einstein, �Remarks on Bertrand Russell�s Theory of Knowledge,� The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Vol.�5 of The Library of Living Philosophers, editor Paul Arthur Schilpp (LaSalle, Illinois, Open Court, 1944), p.�289.

e. Philip Van der Elst, C. S. Lewis: A Short Introduction (New York: Continuum, 1996), p. 24.