Debunking evolutionist circular argument #647

[BobRyan]

It is a popular retort of some evolutionist to argue that one cannot logically claim that God made the universe without first explaining who made God.

That is a circular argument because it "assumes" the salient point of evolutionism's "materialism" rather than proving it to be fact.

That circular argument may be illustrated this way.

==================================================
I say "Hey look a bird came by and picked up my sandwich and put it in that tree"

To which the atheist evolutionist responds 'you cannot make that claim until you tell us who picked the bird up so the bird could put the sandwich in the tree'.

To which I respond "nobody picked the bird up --- it is the nature of birds by definition - that they fly'.

To which the evolutionist responds "In my world everything is a sandwich and by that definition cannot fly - so tell us who/what picked the bird up or else you cannot claim that the bird picked your sandwich up".

But it is that "everything is sandwich" presupposition that is in error and has to be tossed out - when evaluating my claim. You cannot evaluate another person's world-view by inserting your own world-view into it.

When the Dawkins-evolutionist says "in the beginning there was a single viable eukaryote, or prokaryote, or big bang" you cannot then say to them "And then what did God say?" -- because that would be inserting the Christian world view - into theirs.

Hence: "By definition" God has no beginning and matter does.

Both sides know about the second part of that statement and also the first
=================================================

Another circular argument of evolutionists - debunked.

 

[Resha Caner]

It is a popular retort of some evolutionist to argue that one cannot logically claim that God made the universe without first explaining who made God.

Who makes this argument? I've seen a few amateurs on the fringes make such arguments, but no one I consider relevant to evolution. This argument has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

To which I respond "nobody picked the bird up --- it is the nature of birds by definition - that they fly'.

To which the evolutionist responds "In my world everything is a sandwich and by that definition cannot fly - so tell us who/what picked the bird up or else you cannot claim that the bird picked your sandwich up".

What you're describing here is not a circular argument, but an infinite regress. And your description of a circular argument (assuming rather than proving) is wrong. Assumptions are a necessary part of life. We can't prove everything. Further, though your claim regarding definitions is close, it would be more proper to say it is an issue of assumptions. Given "self-evident truth" is not something we can establish, arguing assumptions is pointless.

 

[BobRyan]

Who makes this argument? I've seen a few amateurs on the fringes make such arguments, but no one I consider relevant to evolution..

Does the name "Richard Dawkins" ring a bell?

 

[BobRyan]

That circular argument may be illustrated this way.

==================================================
I say "Hey look a bird came by and picked up my sandwich and put it in that tree"

To which the atheist evolutionist responds 'you cannot make that claim until you tell us who picked the bird up so the bird could put the sandwich in the tree'.

To which I respond "nobody picked the bird up --- it is the nature of birds by definition - that they fly'.

To which the evolutionist responds "In my world everything is a sandwich and by that definition cannot fly - so tell us who/what picked the bird up or else you cannot claim that the bird picked your sandwich up".

But it is that "everything is sandwich" presupposition that is in error and has to be tossed out - when evaluating my claim. You cannot evaluate another person's world-view by inserting your own world-view into it.

When the Dawkins-evolutionist says "in the beginning there was a single viable eukaryote, or prokaryote, or big bang" you cannot then say to them "And then what did God say?" -- because that would be inserting the Christian world view - into theirs.

Hence: "By definition" God has no beginning and matter does.

Both sides know about the second part of that statement and also the first
=================================================

Another circular argument of evolutionists - debunked.

What you're describing here is not a circular argument, but an infinite regress.

Only if you adopt the circular argument of "assuming the salient point of materialism" when considering the other side's world view. If you insert materialism into the Christian Creationist's argument you get that infinite regress. But doing that is simply inserting the salient point of the other side into the the creationists argument instead of proving that salient point.

And your description of a circular argument (assuming rather than proving) is wrong. Assumptions are a necessary part of life.

I am not arguing against making assumptions. I am pointing out the logical fallacy of assuming the salient point under debate, the point to be proven. When you try to prove a point and start by assuming it in the middle of the alternative view - you employ circular reasoning of the form "you are wrong because I am right about this - and I am right because I am right".

Further, though your claim regarding definitions is close, it would be more proper to say it is an issue of assumptions.

The salient point that can only be accepted by "assuming it" is not logical.

The whole reason for arguing differing points of view - is the underlying understanding that points of view can be examined and tested.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Resha Caner]

Does the name "Richard Dawkins" ring a bell?

Like I said, no one I would consider relevant ... Anyway, I assume you're referring to The God Delusion. That book is a defense of atheism, not evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

Like I said, no one I would consider relevant ... Anyway, I assume you're referring to The God Delusion. That book is a defense of atheism, not evolution.

Until you read it - and see Dawkins' many interviews on the subject defending evolutionism. His argument is that Creation is not an alternative because one would need to explain the (naturalist/materialist) origins of the Creator for that to be an alternative.

How that defends evolutionism - is that it tries to discount "the alternative" -- as I think we can all see at this point.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6113

"who designed the designer"

And here’s atheist philosopher of religion Gregory Dawes:

Richard Dawkins, for instance, writes that to explain the machinery of life “by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing.” Why? Because it “leaves unexplained the origin of the designer.”

…[Dawkins' idea is] that religious explanations are unacceptable because they leave unexplained the existence of their explanans (God). Dawkins apparently assumes that every successful explanation should also explain its own explanans. But this is an unreasonable demand. Many of our most successful explanations raise new puzzles and present us with new questions to be answered.6

Theism and Explanation, pages 15-1

 

[Resha Caner]

Only if you adopt the circular argument of "assuming the salient point of materialism" when considering the other side's world view. If you insert materialism into the Christian Creationist's argument you get that infinite regress. But doing that is simply inserting the salient point of the other side into the the creationists argument instead of proving that salient point.

A circular argument means one has implicitly assumed the conclusion. Materialism has nothing to do with the question, "Who created God?" It's a philosophical question regarding First Cause - or rather an implicit rejection of a First Cause. A Christian would say God is the First Cause. I've spoken with materialists who accept the idea of a First Cause, just not God.

So, two different questions.

Now, if materialism is indeed the subject of the debate, you would be correct that assuming materialism would constitute a circular argument. But, again, what has that got to do with evolution? Just because Dawkins was an evolutionist doesn't mean every word that came from his mouth was about evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

from that same discussion link provided above. An atheist complaining that his fellow atheists keep using that nonsense.

===================================================

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6113#footnote_5_6113

Today I want to kill one of atheism’s sacred cows. I want to kill one of atheism’s most popular and resilient retorts.

One of atheism’s sacred cows is the “Who designed the designer?” response. Here’s how it works:

THEIST: “There is so much complexity in the world, it must have been designed by an Intelligent Designer. The best explanation for our world is an Intelligent Designer.”

ATHEIST: “But then who designed the Designer?”

THEIST: “Nobody.” (Or perhaps: “I don’t know.”)

ATHEIST: “Well then you have explained nothing.”

This is a highly popular objection. For example, here’s Christopher Hitchens:

…the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator. Religion and theology… have consistently failed to overcome this objection.1

 

[Resha Caner]

Until you read it - and see Dawkins' many interviews on the subject defending evolutionism. His argument is that Creation is not an alternative because one would need to explain the (naturalist/materialist) origins of the Creator for that to be an alternative.

I understand Dawkins defended evolution at times. But I will repeat that simply because he was an evolutionist doesn't mean his every argument was about evolution. "Origins" (the word you used) has nothing to do with evolution. It's a philosophical question of First Cause. Dawkins was wrong. IMO he made poor arguments and he was only successful when he managed to intimidate his opponent. But, again, not evolution.

This is a pet peeve of mine. YEC has a horrible reputation for misrepresenting their opponents. If you're going to debate an issue, be clear on what issue you're debating.

 

[BobRyan]

A circular argument means one has implicitly assumed the conclusion.

Indeed - they conclude in favor of their POV - and the when discussing the alternative - insert that conclusion into the alternative as if this would be logical - as if it reasonably disproves/refutes/debunks the alternative.

Materialism has nothing to do with the question, "Who created God?"

In this case it is the point being assumed. The idea that everything MUST have a material origin so if something has a God origin - well then - God had a material origin because (circle back) "everything must have a material origin".

It's a philosophical question regarding First Cause - or rather an implicit rejection of a First Cause. A Christian would say God is the First Cause. I've spoken with materialists who accept the idea of a First Cause, just not God.

In Materialism - every first cause - is materialism.

The whole point of evolution being the only viable religion for atheists is that they "need" materialism.

 

[BobRyan]

I understand Dawkins defended evolution at times. But I will repeat that simply because he was an evolutionist doesn't mean his every argument was about evolution.

Indeed -- many arguments in that genre - but I am speaking specifically of this one -- about origins contrasting the creationists answers to the materialism alternative.

"Origins" (the word you used) has nothing to do with evolution.

Really?

Where did humans come from?
Where did eukaryotes come from?
Where did prokayrotes come from?
Where did the universe come from?

It is the origin of life, the origin of the cosmos - the origin of everything you see that is being addressed by these stories about "change over time".

(you and I are discussing this on the "origins theology" section of this board)

 

[Resha Caner]

One of atheism’s sacred cows is the “Who designed the designer?”

Yeah, OK. But the reference is to atheists, not evolutionists. One person could hold both positions, and if they conflate those arguments they are indeed wrong. But let's rise above and keep them in their proper context.

So what is it you're trying to discuss? Materialism or First Cause?

 

[BobRyan]

I am specifically pointing to the "who designed the designer" circular argument.

By definition - birds fly... sandwiches do not.

By definition infinite God has no beginning - rocks, the sun, the moon, galaxies... do.

God can design and does according to Romans 1 - it is "clearly seen " even by those with no Bible at all.

 

[Resha Caner]

In this case it is the point being assumed. The idea that everything MUST have a material origin so if something has a God origin - well then - God had a material origin because (circle back) "everything must have a material origin".

Yeah, if they refuse to acknowledge the assumption that would be a fallacious argument. However, that's not the way the argument is usually formulated. It's usually formulated as a challenge to prove something immaterial.

In Materialism - every first cause - is materialism.

Yeah, and how do you escape making an identical circular argument? The immaterial doesn't need to be created. God is immaterial. God was not created. Aren't you making an assumption in there that you're not acknowledging?

The whole point of evolution being the only viable religion for atheists is that they "need" materialism.

FYI, I'm not going to respond to polemics.

Really?

Yeah. Really. Abiogenesis is a different topic. Do I think it's an artificial separation of human making? Yes. But at least biologists are honest that they don't have answers to many origins questions.

 

[BobRyan]

But as Dawkins points out - they insist it came about via naturalism.

And the fact that they "Give up" on abiogenesis just proves how flawed their system of guesswork is. Abiogenesis starts at the lowest level - with the complex variables that we CAN manipulate/duplicate/create in the lab... molecules/compounds... all strictly inanimate. The very realm where we CAN manipulate every step ... And it is there that "change over time" even "lab-manipulated change over time" falls apart.

The less evolutionists know about a given area the more certain they are of their conclusions.

But in the case of chemistry - there is a lot we do know - and here they are pretty certain that they cannot master the task at hand. Because the more they do control it, the more they do know - the more they know what they don't know.

Next easiest step - get a prokaryote to turn into a single celled eukaryote via lab-manipulated-evolutionism. Not doing that either. All the supposedly "simple" steps too far beyond science.

 

[Resha Caner]

And the fact that they "Give up" on abiogenesis just proves how flawed their system of guesswork is.

I don't consider it a flaw to admit to what one doesn't know. I find it admirable, and try to be forthcoming about what I don't know. For example, it's not I who knows God is the First Cause. It's God who knows He is the First Cause (Exodus 3:14). I simply trust Him.

Some people do think I prevaricate and split hairs. I guess I think they just don't understand me. Regardless, while we may agree in the conclusions, I think it is also important to arrive at those conclusions in a manner that is fair, honest, and sound. I don't like the approach many YECs take.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't consider it a flaw to admit to what one doesn't know. I find it admirable, and try to be forthcoming about what I don't know.

Indeed - they should admit that they do not know that evolutionism is true at all. And some of them do.

===================================


Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:



Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"


Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

========================================


Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981


--------------------- Patterson said -


“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?


I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”


"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.


"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...


It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...


about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

 

[Resha Caner]

Indeed - they should admit that they do not know that evolutionism is true at all.

Hmm. And what is "evolutionism"?

 

[BobRyan]

It is fiction - a fact-challenged-religion that leads to the following frank confession for atheists like Patterson "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics...

 

[Viren]

Materialism can't measure thoughts and information. Imagine if Steve Jobs was monitored by an MRI machine. It might pick up activity in certain parts of his brain and the neuron firings would seem random. But what if he was actually coming up with IPhone at the time? The entire universe could be functioning in a similar way only on a infinitely larger and more complex scale.