Evolution (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)
A short one.
If naturalism is true we got here through millions of years of random mutations, along with our brains. Should we trust a brain which only got here through random mutation? Clearly not.
Conclusion: if evolution is true, we certainly don’t understand it properly.
PhotonQ-Homer’ s Evolution Theory (Photo credit: PhOtOnQuAnTiQuE)
Probably one of the most often-used comment on this blog from atheists goes something like this:
You’re a Christian? Doesn’t that mean you don’t even believe in evolution? Ha ha ha, hey everyone! Look at this clown! Not only does he not believe in atheism, he doesn’t even believe in evolution, which everyone knows is a fact! What an idiot.
Well, atheist, just in case you still don’t realise that evolution is not, in fact, a fact, I think you may need to read a book written by an atheist. Here’s a little quote from it:
Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.
Hm. So why is he not happy to force every piece of evidence into the evolutionary theory? In his own words:
My skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense.
[D]oubts about the reductionist account of life go against the dominant scientific consensus, but that consensus faces problems of probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough, both with respect to the evolution of life forms through accidental mutation and natural selection and with respect to the formation from dead matter of physical systems capable of such evolution.
So there you go. It’s called Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, and of course it’s on Amazon and elsewhere.
