Hi,
So I have actually made great ground debating Evolutionists recently. I showed that predators are likely to cooperate and that mutations destroy themselves and that selection pressures are likely to activate multiple adaptations. The problem is that all of this just amounts to arguing for the value of trying to survival, not actually winning the struggle to survive once and for all. Now in a sense I can never show this, because Evolution will always cause the flesh to become strong and the spirit will never take hold of the flesh to destroy it. But I remain convinced that there is a way to frame the argument as a glass half full debate.
In times past describing the debate as a glass half full has taken the route of pointing to all the massive amount of coincidences necessary to perfect life and saying "how could this be, by any other means than a god?" but I think there must be a structural argument. As I see it there is some sort of interaction between a selection pressure and the soul which isn't clear. The standard argument is that everything dies and selection pressure chooses what it likes from what's left, but this divorces agency from the population thus in turn invalidating the need of Jesus to give any choice between Heaven and Hell, at least as far as this life is concerned, which not only isn't fair, it's wrong! The fact is that death of the soul initially causes an organism to reproduce faster, because the fear of death is so powerful, whether you face it or not. That means that selection will favour those organisms that brave the fear of death, at least a little.
What is clear however, is that you cannot do this all the time, so either Evolution will instinctively destroy itself, or those that face death more than others will prove stronger than the rest without trying, hence failing the survival test. Now you might think "so everything will be afraid" but that is the problem, creatures that live in fear don't flourish and nothing that can't flourish survives. So it is a zero-sum game as long as you are playing survival of the fittest against all other principles OR you acknowledge that there is a God that can discern between death worth facing and death not. Either way Evolution loses. It is in a sense an argument in favour of permanent loss.
An argument in favour of permanent loss, defines gain as something ambiguous in order to quicken most of the end.
I suppose in the end, it is a matter of whether Evolution truly survives.
So I have actually made great ground debating Evolutionists recently. I showed that predators are likely to cooperate and that mutations destroy themselves and that selection pressures are likely to activate multiple adaptations. The problem is that all of this just amounts to arguing for the value of trying to survival, not actually winning the struggle to survive once and for all. Now in a sense I can never show this, because Evolution will always cause the flesh to become strong and the spirit will never take hold of the flesh to destroy it. But I remain convinced that there is a way to frame the argument as a glass half full debate.
In times past describing the debate as a glass half full has taken the route of pointing to all the massive amount of coincidences necessary to perfect life and saying "how could this be, by any other means than a god?" but I think there must be a structural argument. As I see it there is some sort of interaction between a selection pressure and the soul which isn't clear. The standard argument is that everything dies and selection pressure chooses what it likes from what's left, but this divorces agency from the population thus in turn invalidating the need of Jesus to give any choice between Heaven and Hell, at least as far as this life is concerned, which not only isn't fair, it's wrong! The fact is that death of the soul initially causes an organism to reproduce faster, because the fear of death is so powerful, whether you face it or not. That means that selection will favour those organisms that brave the fear of death, at least a little.
What is clear however, is that you cannot do this all the time, so either Evolution will instinctively destroy itself, or those that face death more than others will prove stronger than the rest without trying, hence failing the survival test. Now you might think "so everything will be afraid" but that is the problem, creatures that live in fear don't flourish and nothing that can't flourish survives. So it is a zero-sum game as long as you are playing survival of the fittest against all other principles OR you acknowledge that there is a God that can discern between death worth facing and death not. Either way Evolution loses. It is in a sense an argument in favour of permanent loss.
An argument in favour of permanent loss, defines gain as something ambiguous in order to quicken most of the end.
I suppose in the end, it is a matter of whether Evolution truly survives.