Q15: Psychology,
evolution, agency and creation
|
|
This is a
complex question filled with assumptions and
bad reasoning. So let's start by identifying
the assumptions and bad reasoning, and then
we'll go on to the core of the question and
the answer. The first assumption this article makes concerns evolution. Let's start by clarifying what, of the various types of evolution, is in view. Eric Hovind identifies six ways the word evolution is used in this video. Of the various types. This question is obviously referencing Darwinian evolution (which Hovind refers to as "macroevolution") or more precisely Neo-Darwinian evolution. The second assumption the question makes is that either type - Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is true. That is false. This website identifies many reasons why it's false. There are currently 64 articles under the topic "evolution" on this site explaining why evolution is false so I won't take the time to explain why here. If you need evidence of the falsity of evolution, please review the articles. With those clarifications let's go on to the main assertions in the question.
Questionable and False assertions 1. Humans are wired to see "agency" even where there is none. 2. The "they" referenced are Christians meaning Christians see "agency" in the creation of the universe, when they should not.
You can view the clip here. Trying to apply this argument for modern people who believe in, and use modern science (like Christians) is essentially a form of the fallacy of suppressed evidence. It would be like accusing a modern day physicist of seeing all the math involved in physics as an arithmetic problem - accusing him of being ignorant of, and denying other fields of math such as algebra, trigonometry and calculus. Not only is that untrue, but it would be insulting to a physicist to make such an accusation. Likewise for modern people who grew up in the modern world immersed in the products of modern science which includes Christians. It is untrue that that Christians view the world as primitive people did, seeing gods or fairies as causative "agents" everywhere. So don't be astonished and dismayed at modern Christians. The one you should be astonished and dismayed at is not the misunderstood Christian, but the person who considers himself sophisticated, yet holds such an uninformed, ignorant view of modern people such asChristians.
Now regarding the topic seeing agency. Often times there is good reason to see agency. A friend of mine, a PhD scientist, signs all his emails "Show me a message that didn't come from a mind." A message is the intentional construction of a series of symbols, according to a formalized set of rules of communication like the English language, arranged to convey an idea, and expressed in physical form whether through writing or verbally speaking (thus affecting the physical air you communicate the message through) in order to convey your thought to another mind. Given the intentional, specified complexity nature of a message, it's ludicrous to think genuine messages just occur - pop into existence out of nowhere (the way secularists believe the universe came into being). As Aquinas points out, just as there is necessarily an archer behind every arrow that causes it to hit the mark, (arrows don't shoot themselves, and certainly not accurately)[2], clearly there is an agent behind every message who constructed it and expressed it. And So it is proper and correct to understand an agent is behind the shooting of an arrow or the conveying of a message. There is a reason every time we see a movie about someone stranded on an island with sandy beaches, one of the first things they do is write a message in the sand. (See Tom Hanks do so in Castaway here, or Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked here.) Why do that unless they expect people to interpret that as the work of an agent - who in this case needs rescuing? Likewise, when we look around the created universe, we see clear signs of agency as surely as we see them behind a message, a well-placed arrow shot, or letters on a beach. Thus the
question should not be, why do Christians
assume there is agency behind the creation
when there is none; rather the question
should be, is there an agent responsible for
the creation of the universe and all we see?
To answer that we should first ask are you a
modern person who believes in the findings
of modern science?
These laws
state that: Biogenesis - Life comes only from life. Nonetheless evolutionists believe that somehow, someway, at some point in time, non-living chemicals became living chemicals. They claim they've abandoned belief in "spontaneous generation" which Louis Pasteur disproved in the 19th century, yet what else can we can conclude except that despite their protestations, they really do believe in spontaneous generation since the theory of evolution - which they firmly believe in - requires it.
Here are just three examples where modern people believe things that modern science have proven to be untrue. I could give you many more, but this is sufficient to make the point.
Are these modern people
actually primitive people who don't know
better? No, that is not the case, the
science is well understood, so clearly they
should know better. What's happening
here
is there is clear cut denial happening here.
Such wrath will ultimately be expressed at the judgment against those who have not accepted God's forgiveness which is only found in accepting Christ.
And God
has foreshadowed that judgment with a global
flood - which secularists also deny - also
because they don't want to face that
terrifying prospect.
As
my pastor has pointed out more than once,
the percentage of people who ultimately die
stands at about 100%. As Pascal points out,
to face death unprepared to face God and His
wrath, not protected by the forgiveness
found only in Christ, because you're betting
there is no God, is a very foolish wager -
with your eternity in the balance. |
|
Notes 2. See Aquinas' Fifth way of
knowing God exists: Image
|
Rational Faith
