What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

[Hieronymus]

previous

For what it's worth, it took me a couple of years to let go of evolutionary thinking.
I always used to believe it, it's what was taught, even when i was a kid in the late 1970s, i believed man descended form apes..
Old earth, ice ages, ancient universe, the default western beliefs...

So i should not forget how cognitive dissonant creationism was to me..
But i didn't expect to find it so often among (otherwise) Bible believing Christians.

 

[Hoghead1]

Hier, pretty much I was raised in a conservative Christian environment. I found it very narrow and too anti-intellectual, so I moved way over to the left, to the liberal side of Christendom. Most Christians I know accept evolution. When I was in seminary, we would have found it quit strange for someone to come in with an anti-evolution approach. I thought that whole thing died out with the Scopes trail.

 

[Hoghead1]

are getting off the topic, Tree of Life. The issue here is not miracles. Miracles or not, the issue here is what is the natural order and how does God work in and through it. Questions about supernatural or paranormal occurrences are a wholly separate issue that belong in a separate thread.

 

[Hoghead1]

Tree, evolution may have strong implications for the Resurrection. The life of Christ can be understood as a key step in human evolutions to higher levels of love and brotherhood.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

How do you arrive at the conclusion?



Any support for your claim?



Is this assertion verifiable in any way?



Our reasoning seems to work. Nature makes sense and is rather stable. We don't know that our thinking WASN'T just a product of our biology and formed by evolutionary forces. Your argument against evolution seems to discount the possibility of evolution, and THAT'S unreasonable, if anything is.



The only people I've ever met who disagree with TOE are those who either:

1. Don't understand it.
2. Have a need to disagree and therefore use confirmation bias.



Could you defend this assertion?




I don't see how, could you elaborate?

How do I arrive at my conclusion or support my claim? I explain it in that same post. Don't just quote a line, I don't repeat myself usually.

The fact is that we Don't know if our reasoning is working, because we can't ascertain if what we consider to be reasonable is actually so if based on brain physiology alone.
You clearly have failed to follow nor understand what I have said. As I said before, this is a greatly simplified form of the argument, it would be better if you read Abolition of Man and Miracles by CS Lewis. There the Argument from Reason is properly explained in the chapters it takes to do so.

To quote:
"One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... unless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based."
From Miracles - text shortened.

A shortened version of the argument that I have come across is as follows:

No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.
If Naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained from non-rational causes.
Therefore if Naturalism is true then no belief is rationally inferred.
We can only accept naturalism if rationally inferred from good evidence.
Hence, there is not nor can there be, good reason to accept as it undermines its own acceptance.

Very simplified into a series of statements, so I still suggest doing some reading to any interested in the argument.

 

[Hieronymus]

What is it about DNA that evolution has trouble explaining?

How come you have to ask when you are on this forum in this topic?
You're pleading ignorance.

But this lecture should give you an idea:

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Oh, I think human reasoning is faulty enough to be able to assert it might as well be a product of evolution. Do you have reason to deny that? Can we trust you to have good reasoning to deny that?

Exactly. Human reason is faulty. All human concepts and ideas must be doubted, including unfortunately both scientific method as well as naturalistic materialism, as both of those are highly dependant on Reason.

 

[46AND2]

Let me just ask. If you became convinced that the resurrection of the Jesus found in the Gospels really took place would it make you reconsider naturalistic evolution?

Absolutely not. If I became convinced that God exists, it would only convince me that both he and evolution are true.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes, I had to let go of absolutes long ago,
but on probability I have lots of things I can treat as *provisional* absolutes, with no need to attempt a quantification of the level of shortfall from absolute certainty.
"Near-certainty" treated as "certainty" *for convenience* does very nicely for many day-to-day activities.
Forgetting that short-cut is there, when that difference is relevant or important, that can make for difficulties.

Each statement nullified? No. The uncertainty creeps in there too, as a bare minimum.

Yes, the uncertainty creeps in if you accept no absolute. Which undermines the very existence of Naturalistic Materialism as a worldview as it is based on the acceptance of Reason alone.
If you accept Naturalism as true however, then everything is nullified.

We aren't talking of provisional absolutes or near-certainty here, for if you treat those as if they are certain *for convenience* then the critique still applies for convenience sake. If you admit they are not absolutes, as you do, then philosophically speaking Naturalistic Materialism remains untenable or at least unsupported as its whole viewpoint is grounded on an absolute reason existing. That man is able to gather trustworthy evidence and come to conclusions based on that is therefore bunk, as all evidence gathered must be doubted on grounds that no sense data can be trusted, on top of faulty reason, and this applies in every step from hypothesis through falsifiability down to eventual acceptance of the theory, so there would be no way to ascertain the probability of anything. A repeatable falsifiable logical sequence, required for scientific method, needs Reason to be held universal if the data supports it, from which probability is derived. Without absolutes the edifice crumbles, although people like to only apply uncertainty to higher levels without extending it to the base and seeing that everything is grounded in slick mud.

 

[Chris B]

Exactly. Human reason is faulty. All human concepts and ideas must be doubted, including unfortunately both scientific method as well as naturalistic materialism, as both of those are highly dependant on Reason.

Why stop there?
If you want to pull the thread on the sweater by undermining human thought, then ideas of deities and miraculous origins drop into the melting pot of uncertainty as well.
Add perceptions to the mix, too. they also lack in perfect reliability.

Where C S Lewis is wrong is not so much with the pure philosophical idea, but with the material result.
It's not just chance. It is descent with difference (which is where chance gets in) plus natural selection which over thousands of iterations produces something that is not random at all, and where thought processes which mismatch significantly with reality (whatever that is, exactly) get weeded out, and that by blind evolutionary forces with not the slightest consciousness of what they are doing.

 

[Armoured]

How come you have to ask when you are on this forum in this topic?
You're pleading ignorance.

But this lecture should give you an idea:

Translation: I can't explain it in my own words, so here's a youtube clip with a title that sounds good.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Why stop there?
If you want to pull the thread on the sweater by undermining human thought, then ideas of deities and miraculous origins drop into the melting pot of uncertainty as well.
Add perceptions to the mix, too. they also lack in perfect reliability.

Where C S Lewis is wrong is not so much with the pure philosophical idea, but with the material result.
It's not just chance. It is descent with difference (which is where chance gets in) plus natural selection which over thousands of iterations produces something that is not random at all, and where thought processes which mismatch significantly with reality (whatever that is, exactly) get weeded out, and that by blind evolutionary forces with not the slightest consciousness of what they are doing.

I am sorry, but I disagree. CS Lewis understood how evolution works. Natural selection and all the other mechanisms changes nothing to the philosophic reasoning as you admit.
The material result proves nothing.
We cannot just ignore reason when it is expedient and embrace it when we prefer it to be used.
Galenic blood theories were accepted for hundreds of years in medicine and gave good results, supported by certain empiric observations and correctly could be used for therapies like venepuncture for Haemosiderosis. It doesn't mean it was right, which ultimately it wasn't.
You cannot argue the methodology by result if those methods then disprove the methodology itself. This is a basic logical fallacy on display here.

As stated before (in my above reply to you for instance), no human knowledge is infallible. Which is the whole point. We cannot be sure of anything of human origin. No theories, no facts, not what I am seeing at this very moment or even if you or I or anyone else on this thread exists can be supported by the metaphysics implied by evolutionary origin of reasoning ability. Only by reason can we impart some structure and reason cannot be philosophically derived from natural materialism.
It is worthwhile to study Evolution, but it should be taken with a pinch of salt when it comes to the evolution of consciousness or physiological reasoning unless you are happy with a world of non-existent self, empty meaning or mindless automata. As I said, I merely replied to the OP on its greatest flaw.

 

[Jimmy D]

How come you have to ask when you are on this forum in this topic?
You're pleading ignorance.

But this lecture should give you an idea:

As usual you post blanket claims no evidence to back up those claims. The main idea that that youtube video gives us is that you are too lazy, or more likely unable, to present said evidence.

For the benefit of those of us who can't watch youtube videos or aren't prepared to spend over an hour doing so please tell us why DNA can't be explained by evolution.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I don't believe that. Please explain why you think this false idea is true. (Not the bit about the universe, I accept that the universe is likely finite)

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins employs the typing monkey concept in his book The Blind Watchmaker to demonstrate the ability of natural selection to produce biological complexity out of random mutations. Do I really need to say anymore then that? Because everyone here seems to be coming out against Dawkins theory making my point for me.

 

[joshua 1 9]

"Naturalistic evolution" refers to a philosophical set of assumptions that include:

1. ToE is true
2. Naturalism is true

You know what evolution is so I won't bother saying more about that here. "Naturalism" is the philosophical position that only natural forces are at work in the world and there are no supernatural beings or forces.

So while the resurrection does not challenge evolution by itself, it does certainly challenge naturalism. And if it challenges naturalism then it also challenges Naturalistic Evolution.

ToE is only true to the degree that it adheres to the truth. We have a hybrid of bait and switch and a Trojan horse. They use what has universal acceptance to stealth in what is untested and untried in their attempt to deny the knowledge of God.

 

[joshua 1 9]

As usual you post blanket claims no evidence to back up those claims.

You have nothing to back up your claims and you try to accuse others of what you are guilty of.

 

[46AND2]

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins employs the typing monkey concept in his book The Blind Watchmaker to demonstrate the ability of natural selection to produce biological complexity out of random mutations. Do I really need to say anymore then that? Because everyone here seems to be coming out against Dawkins theory making my point for me.

He doesn't employ the typing monkey concept in his book. He manipulates it in order to show that, in it's original state, it is not an apt analogy for evolution. THAT is why Dawkins' statements don't make your point for you, and in fact, refute your point.

 

[Jimmy D]

You have nothing to back up your claims and you try to accuse others of what you are guilty of.

What claims? That using youtube videos are not a valid debating tool?

 

[joshua 1 9]

He doesn't employ the typing monkey concept in his book. He manipulates it in order to show that, in it's original state, it is not an apt analogy for evolution. THAT is why Dawkins' statements don't make your point for you, and in fact, refute your point.

So if Dawkins / Hawking are against an infinite number of possibilities than what model do they use instead?

 

[klutedavid]

Hello all.

The hard evidence against any ideology and whatever that ideology may be,
for example be it evolution, capitalism, democracy, e.t.c. All these ideologies
in the end are just useless ideas. Speak to me about the revelation of the Christ
and you will have my full attention, the Christ had no time for the latest ideas.