The Hunmanist/Atheist Scriptural Affirmation:
2 Tim. 3:7
“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”
One of the most amazing things about atheism and humanist thought is that they don’t believe that they are offering a religious view or alternative to Christianity or any other religion. They believe that their focus in strictly on humanity and solving their own problems through methods such as reason and logic.
Quite the contrary is true. In the world of atheism flesh replaces God, the Humanist Manifesto replaces the bible and apostles of their faith are men like Issac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, Paul Kurtz and vulgar women like the late Madalyn Murray O’Hair.
Back to the Critique:
(When speaking of sexuality Mr. Randolph says this,) “I don’t buy it because I know that pheromones or at least something that is given off by an individual has an effect on arousal.”
(Once again there is no moral culpability only material and matrialistic thought. Therefore men if your wife leaves the house and sleeps with another man, don’t get angry, just blame it on those darn pheromones. Women, don’t blame your husband it was the pheromones that got him….YEA RIGHT!)
- I challenge the whole concept of sin. I think it is a misunderstanding of evolutionarily developed behaviors and human biology that were not understood at the time the scripture was written. I say we are at least as ‘good’ as we are ‘sinful’ and in reality the lines of ‘good’ and ‘sin’ are blurred by context.
(I believe the author is more agnostic than atheist. While he says that there is no sin as a true atheist would do, he yet also says that the concept of sin is a “misunderstanding of evolutionarily developed behaviors and human biology that were not understood at the time the scripture was written” Since sin is a nonmaterial concept, I fail to see how it could be misunderstood if we were only material beings. I believe that the writer has the same dilemma in trying to relay nonmaterial concepts of “good” and “sin” or sinfulness. Nevertheless he tries his best to grapple with the evident flaws that he sees in our material world.)
- “but I say that the evidence is reasonably conclusive that there never was an Adam and Eve. The only evidence for Adam and Eve come from the bible, the Egyptian myth of the potter that makes humans out of clay, and the Sumerian myth of the god that was killed and his blood was mixed with the earth to make humans.”
(As I said earlier, “NO mystery religious story that parallels the story of Jesus and many other Bible characters. By virtue of this, the Biblical narrative remains unique among rivals. Secondly, most mystery religion narratives do not offer concepts of a singular creator over and of all things, didn’t offer sin as a problem between God and man,…” The story cited has no bearing on the Biblical account of creation or the creation of man. In Genesis God did not “die” in creation to create anyone by his blood. In fact the bible says that God is a Spirit (Jn. 4:24) and that flesh and blood cannot enter into his kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50) Further God breathed the breath of life into man to make man a “living soul”(Gen. 2:7, 1Cor. 15:45) There is no resemblance to the Genesis account of the creation of man and the story that the writer presents. It is rather a leap of “blind faith” to make a correlation here.)
- “If Adam and Eve did exist then for them to have conceived of choosing to disobey god, the mechanism to do that would have had to already existed. They would have already had to have the architecture in place to allow that to happen. If not, then God would have had to make a “Great Overhaul” of human and animal physiology to ‘curse us’. Alternately to say that Adam and Eve are just Metaphors for mans sinful nature is to admit that we were made from the beginning to “prefer sin” or somewhere along the line, we were perfect and then decided to sin and the “Great Overhaul” occurred, but anthropology does not support that conclusion in any measure.”
(Once again the author presupposes that Adam and Eve were created with the predisposition to sin. He suggests that they were fatalistically predetermined by inherent genetic makeup to do so. Nothing is further from the truth. In Gen. 1:31 God after viewing all of HIS creation declared it to be “very good” This phrase indicated that his creation was without, death, turmoil, degeneration or any negative factors or features down to it’s core and essence. Therefore, according to scripture, the only overhaul that man underwent was the overhaul due to the addition of sin to his physical and spiritual nature. The act of sin immediately separated man from God (Is. 59:1-2) started the process of death within the individual and creation itself. (Rom. 8:22). I would suggest that knowing the correct interpretation of the narrative, the author would rather suggest that the entire story is merely an allegory in order to maintain his fallacious argument. The author further equates human physiology to animal physiology. This will come into play a little further.)
- “Addictions are evolutionary processes running amok that never had the ability or time to compensate for error. To say that God sabotaged us to prefer sin is obviously a ridiculous charge against the Christian God, therefore the alternative is that he didn’t have anything to do with our creation.”
(WOW! Now to those who didn’t believe what I said earlier the truth finally blatantly comes out. There was no God in our creation to begin with. He follows after the pattern of Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion” asserting that purely natural forces best explain apparent design at all levels. Further he insists that addictive behavior are just evolutionary processes out of control that need time to compensate for the error. The logical and reasonable question would be is that evolution progressive or regressive? Have we grown past addictive behavior or are we growing into addictive behavior? As one can see the atheist with a purely materialistic outlook as the writer claims has no hope in life period.)
- “The more of these organisms that survive, the more they reproduce and the more copies they make of themselves. Over time, survival strategies evolved naturally. Some of these were discovered after that “Beautiful Mind” John Nash created a mathematical model of economic behavior.”
(Once again, even the worst behavior known to man is somehow rewarded as being merely a survival technique of natural selection of the species. Following this logic, man will soon be displaying his most historically worst behavior in order to survive. I suppose this is our Animal physiology coming to the surface.)
- On his section regarding genetics Lee said this, “There are genetic factors that promote or detract from survival. Those genetic factors that promote survival will get more copies made. Organisms that survive will pass them on. A famous genetic mutation is Sickle Cell anemia. It evidently created an evolutionary advantage against malaria, but over time the need has diminished and now it is a disease because the context changed. Additionally, sometimes genes get distorted and a mutation occurs”
(In the atheist world, mutations are normal as the species is constantly changing to eliminate the weak and strengthen the strong. The weak are at the bottom of the food chain while the strong are at the top. The Christian world view offers a totally different picture of reality and introduces a nonmaterial concept of love which cannot exist in the atheist world view. Sickness and illness to the atheist are merely means to let the strong survive. This is in stark contrast to the Council for Secular Humanism’s view. They say the following, “We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather that guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.” Therefore the authors statements are difficult to understand because he does not offer any good values or outcomes as atheists and humanists are supposed to offer. Therefore his very own arguments are not only irrational, they are in stark contrast to even his own world view.)
- “Temperament is defined as the part of the personality that is genetically defined. Patterns of behavioral traits run in families”.
(Once again the author knowing that temperament or emotions are a non material reality tries to claim it as a material or “genetically defined” part of man. This is a fallacy necessary to promote the ultimate god that he worships which is flesh and material.)
- “As organisms interact in their environment, they behave according to internal factors, according to things they have learned and according to things they have stored in memory. They have the function of their internal processes influenced and shaped as time goes on. While it can be shown that a kind of xenophobia naturally results in the brain and the evolutionary advantage is apparent, people can reduce its impact by learning about the stranger and creating positive feelings about them”
(Lee uses this statement to explain racism, basically making it equivalent to a species survival technique of genetic application This statement is also motivated, however, by an implicit or explicit rejection of God as Creator and of humans as made in His image and hence distinct from the animal world. Founded both on sentiment and on several unexamined, unproveable, and, false presuppositions, it has attained considerable influence, defended by individuals of ability and passion. If carried to its logical end, it will do far less to ennoble animals than to debase man. This argument is an attempt to refute that man is made in the image of God and moreover equate the material of man with the material and substance of animals.)
-
Reasoning properly is not something we are born with.
(In a prior statement the author said that temperament is genetically defined. However here he says that “reasoning” is not genetically defined. We are not born with it. The question is where does reason come from? Is reason nonmaterial? Is reason based on laws of logic? Isn’t logic nonmaterial? If so the atheist has no argument against those who operate without or against reason.)
- “One bias is the famous “Pascals Wager”. It is a simple heuristic that is analogous to the survival instinct. It says “minimize risk”. While this is a sound principle, how one goes about is the hard part. We have to teach children to “reason away” the fear of something under the bed, in the closet or noises in the house. This is where the discipline in thinking comes into play, the inference from statistics, and learning the difference between correlation and cause and effect.”
(In the area of religion, Pascal is best known for his “wager.” Pascal, a Christian believer and apologist, argued that while God’s existence cannot be known with rational certainty, it is nevertheless prudent to believe in God. In his book “Pensées”, Pascal argued that either God exists or he does not exist. However, our present life, and possibly our future destiny, rests upon the alternative that we choose. Pascal reasoned that by believing in God (Christian theism), you have everything to win (in fact, you have eternal life to win) and nothing to lose. However, by not believing, you have nothing to win and everything to lose (in fact, you could lose your eternal soul). He therefore reasoned that if you consider what’s at stake, your best (or safer) wager is to believe in God. To wit — “Pascal’s wager.” He reduces this to “minimize risk”. Since the atheist does not believe in the nonmaterial world, what risk was Pascal advising non-believers to minimize? According to the atheist, was his statement even a rational one?)
- “How much freewill is left in the pie chart of decision making? It is said among Christians that God gave us freewill as a gift and we are supposed to use it to choose to love and obey him. They say that he won’t influence our freewill. If god will not influence our freewill, then it doesn’t follow that he made us. If he made us, he built in all kinds of factors that influence our freewill.”
(I said this in response to an earlier statement, “If as the writer suggests in the entirety of the writing that we are merely material beings, then it is his faith that “free-will” does not exist. We are merely beings who’s actions are “fatalistically determined” our choice and ability to choose are mere functions and factors of genetic makeup and brain chemistry, my decision therefore to write this article and your decision to read is not free, but is all fatalistically predetermined. )
- “To say, for example, that we are guilty of adultery for thinking about it (as Jesus did) is to say that there is no hope for redemption unless we are in a constant state of repentance.”
(This is a misrepresentation of what Jesus said. Mt. 5:27-28, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” He said if a man looks upon a woman to lust after her. These actions are more than just a thought and can be done by even a blind man. Thinking about adultery was not the problem. Looking or regarding to lust was the problem. Thoughts come as the tempter comes but should not find anything in us (John 14:29, 2 Cor. 10:4, Rom. 8) Continued thinking suggests an inclination birthed within the heart of an individual.)
- “None of this is laid out for understanding in the Bible. It was all misunderstood. Western Judicial Systems are on the edge of a cognitive science wind of change about why we behave the way we do and thinking about our culpability.”
(This lays the foundation for the next wave of the humanist and atheist agenda. We note that material science will drive alternatives to the current Judicial Systems interpretation of crime and punishment. This is in addition to the current outcry for fair sentencing among minorities and other socially disadvantaged groups of individuals. I believe this is a dangerous cocktail designed to bring more anarchy within communities and create an atmosphere that has no moral restraints and is all inclusive of the complete criminal element.)
Blessed!
The Dunamis Word 2 
Lee Randolph stated: “I challenge the whole concept of sin. I think it is a misunderstanding of evolutionarily developed behaviors and human biology that were not understood at the time the scripture was written. I say we are at least as ‘good’ as we are ‘sinful’ and in reality the lines of ‘good’ and ‘sin’ are blurred by context”.
My response: It is funny when people(like Lee) use technical knowledge in an attept to make the bible look outdated. The idea that the ancients are not as knowledgeable as we are may be true, but it is certainly not true, that we are wiser than they.
Today, we have a problem, with the end of knowlede and the strategic use of knowledge. We do because we have more knowledge, than wisdom. We focus more on knowledge, but not how to use knowledge. The right use of knowledge is a function of wisdom.
It is actually funny to hear someone say that they are challenging the whole concept of sin because (they think) it is a misunderstanding of evolutionary developed behaviours abd human biology and because those who wrote the scriptures did not undertand biology.
I stated earlier on that the evolutionary paradigm for human behaviour has nothing to do with “moral survival” but “survival”.
For natural selection simply about those traits that constituted an organisim’s genotype( that aid survival) and that are expressed as its phenotype and that helps them to exploit their enviroment so that they can pass those genes on to successive generation. The evolutionary paradigm is simply about evolving as a result of genetic factors, mutations, and enviormental factors, in order to adapt to the enviromental pressure that exists.
And when we observe the world relative to all living organisims this is what seems to be happening. The whole universe is a struggle to survive. And whatever causes survival according to that paradigm is what is beneficial for the survival of an organisim. And so we see; beetles that exploit an ant colonly by pheremone. We see brids laying their eggs in others nests so that chicks an be fed. All such behaviour cannot be considered as being morally wrong since such behaviours are consistent with the evolutionary paradgim and the genetic make uo of the organisim.
But at the same time we see symbiotic relationships in nature. For we see the bee’s aiding pollination and the flowers they pollinate giving nectar for hoey and wax in return. We see this when the solitary bee pollinates the spring orchid. The bee aids humans comercially relative to honey and wax. The bee regulates the atmosphere as well. So, we see, what is called a sumbiotic relationship. However such a behavioour is determined by bee’s D.N,A and the bee is not a moral agent. And consequently such behaviour that can often be perceived as moral or such a relationship which can be considered as good has nothing to do with the bee being moral. For such behaviours are based on the bees genetic in order to survive. The same is true for the follwers that bees pollinate. And consequently in the evolutionary paradigm for behaviour there is no distinction between symbiosis, commensalisim, and parasitisim. All such behaviours are about survial and not moral survival, or right and wrong, or good and evil.
The fact is this; the evolutionary understanding of the nature of human behaviour has nothing to do with morality or morals. For there is no evidence for moral behaviour in our genotype. There is no evidence supporting moral genes. For the basis fo evolutionary behaviour has a genetic dimension.
So, if there is a genetic basis for moral behaiour it means that moral behaviour is determined. But that cannot be, since there can be no moral behaviour with a moral agent, and no moral agent without the capacity to make moral decisions independent of prior causes. For if my good behaviour is determined, then how can i be responsible for it? For it was not i who did it and i had not cotraol over it.
But evolutionary theory relative ot moral bhevaiour has not objective basis for;
How do we reconcile a behaviour that can be considered an not moral and yet it aids survival with a moral system that prohibits such a behaviour? We cannot. Therefore it follows, that we cannot reoncile the differences that exist between behaviour that is consistent with evolutionary principles and behaviour that is consistent with moral principles.
For what is permitted on grounds of evolution may beprohibited on grounds of morality. And what is prohibited on grounds of morality may be permitted on grounds of evolution.
For morality says it is wrong to survive in this way. But evolution says it is not moral survival that matters, but survival.
Moral survival is a survival that is consistent with moral principles.
E.g 1. Survival is moral when it is consistent with morality.
2. Working to survive is consistent with morality.
3. Therefore survival by working is moral.
But evolutionary survival is based on what causes adaptation.
1. Whatever causes an organisim to thrive aids survival.
2. Anthropohagy causes some humans to thrive.
3. Therefore anthropophagy aids surivival.
Notice, that anthropophagy is human cannibalisim. Alos notice that. the argument does not tell us if eating humans is morally right. Well, it does not, since all that matters is survival and not moral survival.
Like i stated, evolution and natural selection presents us with a world without values and dignity.
However like i stated earlier on; just because it evolved and it aids and causes adaptation, it doesnt make it moral.
We cannot explain moral behaviour in terms of evolution and natural selection.
The fact is morality aid survival, however it also endangers as well, that is inconsistent with the evolutionary paradigm in an enviroment that is against morals. However, the moralist will continue to defend the truth and morals and value and dignity even if his/her life is endangered. Thus one cannot say that morals aid survival and consequently we can undertand morals in terms of evolution and biology. For morals transcends survival. This is why it is not survival that matters, but rather “moral survival”.
Really he is not challenging only sin, but love as well. For the law that prohibits sin is based on love.
To say that sin is a misunderstanding of human nature is a great folly.
For; 1. Sin is the trangression of the law.
2. Murder is the transgression of the law.
3. Therefore murder is sin.
According to Lee the behaviour of murder is not a sin, since he says he is challenging the whole concept of sin. On the contrary murder is the product of a persons biology and consequently it is not a sin.
However that does not follow because sin is judged by a standard that pertains to righteouness. And therefore sinful behaviour has nothing to do with biology, but “what” causes sinful behaviour may have something to do with biology. And consequently just because a certain behaviour is a product of ones intrinsic nature or biology, it does not follow, that it implies that such a behaviour is not sinful.
Here are some of the things the bible calls sinful:
Stealing, lying, murder, infanticide, adultery, fornication, hatread, greed e.t.c
The fact is, all such acts are unloving and are responsible for the moral degredation of any society.
And yet, according to Lee, such behaviour are not sinful, but simply a misunderstanding because we can undertand them in terms of a person biology and what is intrinsic.
Lee’s attempt to undermine sin is an attempt to undermine true love as well. However we, know that a society is much more healthier if those wo constitute it do not practise those things. We know that there will be a collective happiness if people did not practise such things.
1. To promote the disintegration of a society’s moral life is foolishness.
2. Sin causes the disintegration of a society’s moral life.
3. Therefore to promote sin is foolishness.
This is what Lee Randolph is doing with the guise of biology.
In fact bad science continues to undermine morality.
However good science can be used to make rational moral decisions.
For example;
1. It is morally wrong to use anything that contains substances that damages one’s health.
2. Tobacco contains substances that damge one’s health.
3. Therefore it is morally wrong to use tobacco.
The argument above is based on scientific evidnece e.g the effect of nicotine. The carcinogenic properties in tobacco. The harmful chemcial reactions that release the toxic chemicals in the smoke of tobacco e,t,c e,t,c
It is also based on demographic and statistical evidence as well.
Therefore good science can provide good grounds for making objective moral decisions based on facts and objectivity.
Lee Randolph stated: “but I say that the evidence is reasonably conclusive that there never was an Adam and Eve. The only evidence for Adam and Eve come from the bible, the Egyptian myth of the potter that makes humans out of clay, and the Sumerian myth of the god that was killed and his blood was mixed with the earth to make humans.”
My response: The fact is we may reason this way on grounds of the principle of induction:
Whenever we observe A coming from B enough times and there are no exceptions or instances of A not coming from B, it implies that it is very likely and even near certain that A always comes from B.
Let us apply the principle of induction to a concrete example as illustrated by this argument:
The argument is as follows:
Whenever we observe humans coming into being they alwasy develop in the unterus of their mothers womb.
We have observed humans developing in the uterus of their mothers womb millions of times.
We have never observed an exception or an instance when human did not develop in the usterus of their mothers womb.
Therefore on grounds of the principle of induction, it follows by virtue of logical necessity that, it is very likely and even near certain, that humans always develop in the unterus of their mothers womb.
What this implies is this: When life began a man and a woman must have existed. So, it is very likely and even near certain that Adam and Eve must have existed. It is important to note this; we have nerver seen one instance of a human coming into life without the unterus of his/her mother’s womb. However we have seen humans coming into being with the uterus millions and millions of time. So, the evidence supporting how we came into being is “IMMENSE”. But there is no observed instance of the contrary. Our belief is uniformity is close to certainty.
So, there had to be first humans to start the population of life.
We call those humans Adam and Eve.
However, humans are finite and consequently Adam and Eve had ot have a beginning. Since now finite human can pre-exist without any cause, it means that those humans had to have a cause as well.
But, life cannot origniate from non-life(abiogenesis). We have nerver seen one instance of this. Therefore it is very likely and even very near certain that life cannot originate from non life.
And we have never seen, an instance when life did not originate from life. Therefore it is very likely and even near certain that Adam and Eve originated from life of “similar nature”. It is also very likely and near certain that nature cannot cause life to come into being. So we can say it is very liekly and near certain that the event of Adam and Eve coming into being transcends the productive power of nature. What transcends the productive power of nature is metaphysical and in the realm of supernaturalisim. Therefore it is very liekly and even near certain that the event of Adam and Eve coming into being is a metaphsyical event. Therefore it is very likely and even near certain that the cause of Adam and Eve coming into being is a metaphsyical cause.
So, it is very reasonable to believe in Adam and Eve. It is also reasonable to believe that the ultimate cause of life is a metaphysical being(since life alwasy comes from life of similar nature; biogenesis).
Our nature is similar to God’s. For the bible says that humans were created in the “image of God”;just like humans(fathers and mothers) create by reproduction human offspring that are similar to their own nature.
So, it is reasonable to believe that God is that metaphysical cause that has the productive power to do what transcends nature and that is “impossible” for nature to do.
Lee Randolph stated: If Adam and Eve did exist then for them to have conceived of choosing to disobey god, the mechanism to do that would have had to already existed. They would have already had to have the architecture in place to allow that to happen. If not, then God would have had to make a “Great Overhaul” of human and animal physiology to ‘curse us’. Alternately to say that Adam and Eve are just Metaphors for mans sinful nature is to admit that we were made from the beginning to “prefer sin” or somewhere along the line, we were perfect and then decided to sin and the “Great Overhaul” occurred, but anthropology does not support that conclusion in any measure.”
My response: Well, Adam and Eve must have had free will. Why; because if they did not have free will, then why did God command them not to eat from the tree, if they could not choose to eat from it or not eat from it. If they were determined intrinsically so that there were no choices apart from eating, then why did God tell them not to eat?
It would be foolish to assume that God created them to disobey and then he legislated contrary to what he created them to do. It is also foolish to assume that God created them to disobey him and then he required obedience from them.
If God did that then he cannot be ominibenevolent. We believe that God is just, righteous and ominbenevolent. We believe in a God with perfect and immutable moral attributes.
And thus, it reasonable to think that God created them with the capacity to be just or unjust, obedient or disobedient, and good or evil.
So, it follows that God gave them the capacity of free will.
In that context, the law makes sense. For law is devised with the view that humans can make choices and consequently when they fail to fulfil the requirment of the law they are responsible and made accountable for acting contrary to it.
If we consider this issue relative to signs that forbid speeding we see that the sign exists because it is believed that those who own a vehicle(for example) can choose to act consistent or contrary to the sign that indicates the legal speed limit.
For there is no point forbidding 50m/ph on the road if i cannot act consistenly with the sign.
God, gave Adam and Eve a free will……. This is why their moral fall was possible. The moral fall was not “determined”, it was onl “possible”.
Without the possibility we would be automatas or like robots.
However, if God made us automatas, then we would not be responsible for anything. I would not want to be desgined that way. Also, i am sure everyone prefers to determine their won future, choose what they like to eat, choose who they love e.t.c If he created us as automatas we would not be able to determine our won futures.
So, the question is for those who try to blame God is this:
Would you like to be a robot? Or would you like to be human?
Would you like to decide who you love, what you eat, your own future e.t.c? Or would you like that a situtation in which you existed and everything was determined not by you?
Lee Randolph: Addictions are evolutionary processes running amok that never had the ability or time to compensate for error. To say that God sabotaged us to prefer sin is obviously a ridiculous charge against the Christian God, therefore the alternative is that he didn’t have anything to do with our creation.”
My response: I do not agree that addictions are evolutionary processes. The reason being this:
An addiction is caused partly by genetic factors and partly by making bad moral decisions. That someone is predisposed to act in a certain way does not exist without enviromental factors.
In an eviroment where excess alcohol is the norm, one can become addicted to alcohol. However, even though he was predisposed to being addicted to alcohol, his predisposition would not have affected him prior to drinking alcohol in the first place. Therefore no one is predisposed to being addicted to alocohol prior to drinking alcohol. Therefore people can make responsible choices prior to drinking. So, prior to drinking people are responsible for their won choices relative to drinking.
The same is true for smokers. Prior to smoking no human is addicted. Therefore prior to smoking Humans can make choice not to smoke knowing that it is causes a psychological responsible.
When people have a choice and yet they make bad decisions, then they are responsible for their own addiction. This is why one has to be infromed about their own nature and consequently they should make choices or decisions that are consistent with that nature.
If for example, a person is predisposed to being addicted to alcohol knows that alcohol is highly addictive prior to drinking, then he can make a choice not to drink. We can make informed choices. And even if a person is predisposed to being addicted to alcohol, but he does not know it, i think we should all consider whether we should start drinking or not knowing the effects of alcohol in our society. On grounds of statistics we can all make decisons on whether drinking is right for us or not. Since those who are thinking of starting drinking do not know if they are predisposed or not, they can choose and make decisions and about whether they should drink or not based on being infromed. Knowing that some people may be predisposed.
So, even though people may be predisposed, they can make good decisions and informed decisions prior to drinking.
Lee Randolph stated: ◦“The more of these organisms that survive, the more they reproduce and the more copies they make of themselves. Over time, survival strategies evolved naturally. Some of these were discovered after that “Beautiful Mind” John Nash created a mathematical model of economic behavior.”
My response: Yes, survival strategies mya have evolved. However; there is a distinction between moral survival and survival.
In the context of evolution by natural selection survival is based on exploiting and at the expense of the weak. However moral survival is not based on exploitation and exploiting the weak. Hence, humans show ethical consideration and compassion to the weak in our society whether it may be economic or physical weakness(disability). And it is important to note that moral survival(in those cases) does not have one’s self interest as the goal, but that of the weak.
For ethical consideration or considering one morally is based on love. And consequently ethics in its purity transcends simply survival. For it is about motives and intentions that are consistent with ones action and it is about love and consequently not wanting what is bad to happen to others because one has an ethical obligation to them based on love. It is love that justifies “the ought”. I ought to do X because i love Y.
Lee Randolph stated: “There are genetic factors that promote or detract from survival. Those genetic factors that promote survival will get more copies made. Organisms that survive will pass them on. A famous genetic mutation is Sickle Cell anemia. It evidently created an evolutionary advantage against malaria, but over time the need has diminished and now it is a disease because the context changed. Additionally, sometimes genes get distorted and a mutation occurs.”
My response: What Lee is describing here is natural selection.
Natural selection is the theory about the genotype( all the genes that constitute an organisim e.g Alelle, recessive genes, dominant genes) that can be maifested as an organisims phenotype( what an organisim looks like; its physical characteristics).
According to natural selection (or evolution by natural selection) those organisims who can adapt to their enviroment( or exploit their enviroment) because of their genotype will survive in the competition for food and mate so that they can transmit their genes to successive geneations and consequently that particular soecie or taxa will survive. On the contrary those organisims that cannot adapt to new conditions will die.
Evolution by natural selection is about gaining new qualities in order to adapt to change.
According to this therory “mutations” cause “microevolutionary changes” on a molecular level that alter the phenotype that determines an organisims phenotype.
In other words a mutation is a contributive factor to macroevolutionary chnages. Of-course, other factors are both “enviromental” and “reproductive”( assorted speciation; or when an homogenous organisim becomes heterogenous”.)
What is a mutation?
A mutation is a variation in genetic material or it is an inversion in DNA or it is change in DNA.
A famous example of mutation can be illustrated relative to the fruitfly experiement.
It is as follows:
When fruitflies were exposed to an x-ray it was observed that their DNA changed and consequently their offsprings inherited the mutant genes. As a result of this their offsprings were imperfect in terms of their phenotype or “what they looked like or physical appearance”. And thus, they came into being with “crooked wings”, “legs missing” e.t.c
This suggested that mutation is harmful, rather than beneficial.
In fact, what has been observed shows that mutations are harmful.
But mutations are usually classified as (1.) Beneficial(not harmful) (2.) neutral( neither beneficial or non beneficial) (3.) not beneficial( harmful).
The example of sickle cell that Lee Randolph uses is one that some perceive as an illustration of a beneficial mutation.
For it is commonly reported that sickle cell( which is a genetic disorder caused by a mutation) prevents malaria because the malaria parasite transmitted by the female mosquito cannot infect the blood or survive because of the shape of the blood cells.
However; it is important to note this; even though sickle cell prevents malaria it is still a genetic disorder. For sickle cell prevets oxygen to attach to the red blood cell’s haemoglobin. And consequently those with this disorder suffer from respiratory problems and potentially death if it is not dealt with.
Therefore; it is still a harmful mutation.
Moreover; Lee Randolph cannot provide any observational or inferential evidence supporting the notion about sickle cell anemia creating an evolutionary advantage against malaria, but then over time the need has diminished and now it is a disease because the context changed.
For, we have never observed an instance of when sickle cell was not a genetic disorder. Moreover there is no inferential evidence that can be deduced from paleontology to suggest that there was a time when this is so.
For; one cannot observe the genotype of an organisim that no longer exists again. And consequently it is impossible to identify the sickle cell gene.
Therefore it follows, that it is impossible to know if the gene existed and was beneficial without affecting the organisim.
Also, it is impossible to know if the genes of an organisism has changed, if you did not know what it looked like before.
It is clear that no scientists can know what an organisim’s gene looked like before, because paleontology cannot show us the genotype of an organisim.
Therefore it follows that no scientist can know if there was any change in the organisims genotype.
And even if we assume that scientists can observe a dead organisims genotype from it fossils, it will still be impossible to know if a changed occured or not since they cannot observe the state of the gene before the change.
And so, Lee is speculating about sickle cell being beneficial before becoming a genetic disorder.
So we may argue in this way:
P1. Paleontology cannot show us what an organisim’s genotype looked like before.
P2. Without knowing what an organisim’s genotype looked like before, it is impossible to know what it looks like after.
C3. Therefore it is impossible to know what an oragnisims genotype looks like after on grounds of paleontology.
Change requires that we know what an organisims genotype looked liked before. No point saying X has chnaged when one has never observed the way X looked like prior to change.
So also, it is impossible to extablish that a change occured in the past relative to the sickle cell gene so that it was once beneficial. They do not have that data.
The only data they have is of sickle cell being a genetic disorder caused by a mutant gene.
◦“Temperament is defined as the part of the personality that is genetically defined. Patterns of behavioral traits run in families”.
My response: This is a controverial issue that can be considered in the context of nature versus nurture.
Nature pertains to one’s intrinsic qualities that often has a genetic basis or that is genetically determined.
Nurture pertains to one’s upbringing, learning, experiences, and enviroment.
And it is usally beleived that nature does not exist independently of nurture. However,( “to what extent”) each factors plays a role in determining behaviour is unknown.
Therefore it is not necessarily true that these behavioural traits are genetically defined in terms of being categorical. For nurture( learning, upbringing, enviroment, and experiences) is a contributive factor that is sufficient in terms of explaining patterns of behavioural traits. Thus, those traits may be acquried, rather than being innate. It may be enviromental determinisim, rather than genetic determinisim that determines those traits.
It is also controversial to suggest that only genes determines ones personality. For we know that enviroment also determines persoanlity. For this is why even though twins share the same DNA abd genotype, they have very distinct personality.
In fact cats that were cloned from the same DNA behaved differently in one cloning experiment.
This shows that personality is not determined by genes.
For if it was; then twins should have the same personality since they sahre the same DNA and genotype.
For genes are natural clones.
So, Lee has not represented this issue fairly.
Lee staed: “Reasoning properly is not something we are born with.”
My response: I agree. However the capacity to reason is innate. However some are more endowed with this natural talent than others.
Reason can be defiend as the faculty of the mind that enables ones to think within the confines of logic.
Logic is the science that deals with forms of thinking and valid inference. The laws or principles or tautology of logic is inferred from reason itself. So that, logic is dependent on reason and reason is dependent on logic.
Or reason is the capacity to determine truth and draw valid inference.
Reason has two dimensions in terms being manifested as argument and critical thinking.
Logic is not reason in a technical sense. Logic is about the principles that are used to evaluate ones reasoning and thinking, and reason is about the application of those principles.
The aim of logic is to make a disitnction between good reasoning and argument and thinking and bad reasoning and argument and thinking.
Reason is a natural talent that must be developed; especially by intellectuals and philosophers if they want to rationally defend the “virtue of truth”.
As Christians we can also be intellectuals or philsophers as we enguage in apologetics and polemics for our fatih for the end of giving a rational defence for “believing”.
Why not? Has God not given us a mind to think with?
Lee Randolph stated: ◦“One bias is the famous “Pascals Wager”. It is a simple heuristic that is analogous to the survival instinct. It says “minimize risk”. While this is a sound principle, how one goes about is the hard part. We have to teach children to “reason away” the fear of something under the bed, in the closet or noises in the house. This is where the
discipline in thinking comes into play, the inference from statistics, and learning the difference between correlation and cause and effect.”
My response: Pascals Wager is a prident one.
It is not only about minimizing risks alone. It is also about making a rational decision.
Atheisim is a belief. And consequently it is not a position based on knowledge. Thus Atheisim is not knowledge that God does not exist. On the contrary it is the belief that God does not exist. epsitemologically speaking; one way knowledge has been defined as is as follows: “knowledge is justified true belief”, However Atheisim is not justified true belief. And consequently it follows that Atheisim is not knowledge.
So, what Pascal was saying this; if we live a virtous and good life and then we die and there is no God we have nothing to loose. However, if we live a life of vice and then we die, and God eixsts, then we have something loose.
Since we cannot know if God exists or not_— it becomes a matter of probability. So there is a probability that he may or may not exist. So the wise decision on the basis of the probability is to good believing that God may exist or not exist, in contrast to doing evil with the probability that God may exist or not.
He say’s that we have to teach our children to reason away fear. However the fact is this;
Fear is often irrational. And consequently it cannot be reasoned away. In fact fear is often the failure of reason.
And we all know about phobias. I have seen people who are sacred of toilet roles, cotton e.t.c
Fear can be normal and healthy. In fact fear exists to safeguard us in many instances.
To conclude i want to present two arguments against the theory of evolution since most of what Lee Randolph thiks is based on it.
They are as follows with my reasoning:
Arguments against the theory of evolution.
Argument 1 is as follows:
P1. The phenotype of an organisim is the aggregate of physical qualities that constitute what it looks like.
P2. Trace fossils cannot show us the phenotype of an extinct organisim.
P3. Trace fossils cannot show us the aggregate of physical qualities that constitute what an extinct organisim looked like.
P4. Without knowledge of… what an organisim looked like it is impossible to establish that its phenoty…pe changed with modification.
P5. It is impossible to establish that an organisim’s phenotype changed with modification on grounds of trace fossils.
C6. Therefore it is impossible to establish evolution on grounds of trace fossils.
The argument above can also be used against “body fossils” as well.
Basically, paleontology cannot show us “what an organisim looked like” relative to the aggregate of “physical characteristics” that constitute its “outward appearance”.
For skeletal remains do not constitute an extinct organisim’s physical and outward appearance.
Therefore it is impossible to establish that change with modification over a period of time occurred.
Therefore to follows that on grounds of trace fossils and body fossils(or bones without body or tissues in their organic state) that it is impossible to know what an organisim looked like prior to its phenotype changing with modification.
It is also impossible to establish that there is a distinction between what an organisim looked like before and what it looked like after.
Without knowing what an organisim looked like before it is impossible to establish that it has changed.
And thus, evolutionary changes relative to an organisim’s phenotype cannot be established on grounds of 1. Trace fossils and 2. Body fossils(skeletal remains).
There is also a third kind of fossil know as “living fossils”. Basically,”living fossils” are organisims that share many characteristics that belong to their extinct ancestors.
An example of a “living fossil” is the “horseshoe crab”.
Argument 2 is as follows:
P1. Paleontology cannot show us the genotype of an organisim.
P2. Evolutionary changes occur when the genotype of an organisim changes as a result of mutation.
P3. Paleontology cannot show us that the genotype of an organisim changes as a result of mutation.
C4. Therefore paleontology cannot show us that the consequences of mutation relative to an organisim’s genotype is evolutionary changes.
Now, the argument above is to be understood in the context of “evolution occuring in the past”.
The fact is this; Scientists rely on paleontology because they did not exist millions of years ago.
And consequently no scientist observed evolution occuring in the past.
Hence, the argument, because evolution on a macroscopic level is dependent on mutation changing an organisim’s genotype or genes.
However trace fossils, and body fossils, cannot show us what the genotype of an organisim looked like in the past.
And consequently it is impossible to establish that a change occured in the past and relative to its molecular nature/genotype.
It is also impossible to establish a change occured because one cannot establish change if it is impossible to know what the genotype looked like “before”. In otherwords it is impossible to know that something has changed prior to knowing what it looked like before.
So, the basis of evolutionary change in the past cannot be established.
Therefore it follows that scientists assume that evolutionary changes occured in the past by virtue of mutation relative to an organisim’s genotype.
Thank you Pastor Harvey for sharing this blog and article. And May God bless you today in the name of Jesus, Amen.
And i hope to contribute more to your blog..
David,
Thank you for your contribution and I look forward to reading much more. Fantastic!