|Posted by bonesiii on January 26, 2014 at 4:25 PM|
Two points I just thought of that I haven't really heard others point out:
1) Bacterial resistance "evolving" -- besides the usual debunking that this results from a breaking of a function normally helpful to the microbe, there's a larger point here that's missed -- this is still the life system of Earth BREAKING. This is not getting better.
Now, evolutionists usually would counter that evolution doesn't work that way -- it brings benefit to the specific organism, not to the life system.
But they don't seem to think farther than this. We are seeing so many new illness emerging, rapidly. If millions of years of germs getting stronger has occured -- especially if microbes had a vast head start of evolution on multi-cellular beings -- then how is it ANY large-scale life can still survive?
Surely the germs would all be superbugs by now, like the flesh-eating disease, and no multi-cellular life could have ever evolved, at least not beyond simple colonial activity. We would see the microbes even NASA found itself unable to eradicate (which can go anywhere on Earth) combined with the "germ" behavior of disease microbes. If those two things ever coincide, it seems to me all other life would rapidly end.
The only rational explanation for why it hasn't is that life was created, thousands of years ago, not millions, so those supermicrobes have not yet broken to become supergerms.
There's other angles too.
If evolution only works for the individual, then how is it we can have evolutionISTS preaching "good morals" to us, saying that a cooperative system is better for survival? They can't have it both ways. If evolution means that individuals are stronger when they break out of a cooperative system, even attack other members of that biome, then it follows necessarily that human individuals living in a moral, cooperative society are made WEAKER by that society.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Apostle Paul debunked this myth two-thousand years ago. When all the parts of a body (literally and figuratively for any cooperative system, right down to your refrigerator) work in unison, and have varied functions that complement each other, each part is better off.
But if each part is better off when they work together, then once again we are back around to the fact that new emerging diseases, and new resistant strains, are things BREAKING -- getting worse -- NOT valid evidence of upward, constructive evolution. Technically this point holds even IF the resistance involved increasing genetic information (it does not), since evolution would favor information that tells the organism to attack other organisms. Information favoring cooperation would be selected against, and go extinct rapidly.
Even appealing to the modern nature of medicine is irrelevant, since some things like the flesh-eating germ have overcome natural barriers to consume flesh whether medicine is in play or not. This should have happened millions of years ago, you'd think.
2) Evolutionists love to pretend they sound smart by screaming, "The majority of scientists, peer reviewed!"
But have you ever stopped to consider, how do we know the majority, or the scientists, or the peer review produce reliable conclusions?
Actually, the very use of such arguments is an admission that you do NOT understand the reasoning they used to find their conclusion. It is to say, "They're the experts, not me." (And by extension, not us, the creationist wingnuts, as Richard Dawkins has called us.) Of course, never mind that we have some of the best scientists alive today... but there's a key difference in how our side's scientists treat those who they ask to beileve as they do. They do NOT ask them to blindly trust them, but break down the jargon into lay English to explain to us WHY they are correct. Creation scientists say "Don't take my word for it, look at the facts yourself."
Surely this is a stronger sign of reliability? The evolutionist scientists hide behind their imposing majority, their fancy-sounding degrees, their constant refrain of "peer review!" When they do try to give reasoning and evidence to support their views, critical analysis always shows it does not soundly support their conclusions. In the end they always fall back on "Just trust us!" We're supposed to believe that they have some secret smoking gun that they're keeping away from the public, but that is very reliable. A secret knowledge cult (where the secret is... there is no secret).
But let's look at it more closely.
If you are going to shirk your personal duty to become informed on WHY things are true, and trust an expert... How do you know WHICH experts to trust?
It certainly SOUNDS good to trust the vast majority, but the majority has been wrong repeatedly; majorities are usually composed of those who have devoted the LEAST time and thought to solving a riddle. You have to look for which individuals are showing SOUND support. Only if you could prove that a majority is composed of individuals each using sound support could the fact that it's a majority have any rational value.
Sounds good to trust the professional scientists (you'd like to hope they're the ones using ONLY sound support), but don't you have to "trust but verify"? Shouldn't you scrutinize those scientists VERY closely to make sure they're not abusing the authority you grant them? It's human nature for blind trust in other humans to attract the uninformed, illogical, lazy, or worse to the positions being blindly trusted.
And very few scientists ever seriously take on the question of origins itself; most are specialists, trusting that all the OTHER scientists have the evidence for evolution/millions of years, though their own field appears to fit better with the Bible, if they even think to consider which fits better at all, or even take the time to understand the Bible to know whether it does. Those few who do seriously understand the Bible and the science relevant to critically test BOTH/all worldviews become biblical creationists. Every single evolutionist promoter I have ever investigated fails to properly test evolution critically and fails to undertand the Bible.
Sounds good to trust peer review... but again, the reviewers are just as fallible, and if you're not supervising them very closely, then the reviewers themselves are not being reviewed, and the whole argument becomes contradictory. The reviewers are supposed to be oversight to check for errors in the reviewee's reasoning. But who's overseeing the reviewers? Often peer reviewers enjoy the exact opposite of close scrutiny -- anonymity!
Now, if you allow peer reviewers to be publicly identified, and closely supervised... we run into another problem. Who supervises THOSE supervisors? What if you get an entire system of people who all have a bias for a certain view, and aren't limiting their conclusions to only those that have genuine sound support? It only needs to happen ONCE to become entrenched and nearly incurable (if the cures try to enter via the peer review system, since that whole system is designed to weed out contrary views).
Now, the ultimate point that occurred to me is this.
As long as you're going to be placing blind trust in someone, why not put it in God? Note I am NOT arguing for blind trust at all; this is an argument against the entire practice. But notice that the VERY SAME PEOPLE who blindly choose to trust evolutionist-controlled peer review by the evolutionary majority of evolutionist scientists, will actively MOCK us for even APPEARING to "blindly" have faith in God.
But let's measure the two (alleged) blind faiths.
Why would trusting a majority of scientists have value? Simple. Each scientist, working together, becomes part of a vast intellectual network. The collective intelligence, at least on paper, increases with the more scientists checking the other scientists' work. This is a key part of the basis of the scientific method.
But what is God? Is he not claimed to be an INFINITE collective intelligence, of an un-ending number of intellectual parts analyzing every possibility, forever and ever, and even beyond time so ALL his sound conclusions are instantly available should he choose to reveal the? Yes, this is what the Bible teaches -- again, for now we're just talking about what these two options are, not whether they're true. We know scientists exist (though the shirkers do NOT know whether the scientists are using sound investigation, keep in mind), but for the sake of argument, we'll pretend for now that we don't know God exists (we do, by means such as the infinite existence proof).
There's another problem. While collective intelligence increases with the number of scientists, the TIME required to self-correct mistakes ALSO increases exponentially. The more widespread a false belief becomes, the more work is required to spread knowledge of WHY it is false to the entire collection of scientists.
Worse, if there's even a SLIGHT reliance on the appeal to peer-reviewed majority-authority fallacy mix (or other fallacies; a variety of fallacies are common among evolutionists), among the -scientists themselves- then false ideas can become almost impossible to eradicate. Most scientists seem open to SOME less important ideas being challenged, but the core ideas of their worldview, the very framework of ideas through which they see everything, they feel would be 'rocking the boat' too much to challenge.
Even worse, when highly unprofessional emotionalism gets involved, especially the widespread scorn we've seen directed at scientists who try to challenge this (rather than mere calm explaining using ONLY sound reasoning why arguments do not work), and the punishing in practical terms such as firings, the HUMAN system becomes virtually guaranteed to be wrong in major ways. Self-correction becomes banned, if it tries to touch "important" ideas. Instead, ad hoc patches are continually concocted to explain away the contrary evidence.
By contrast, God's infinite and beyond-time nature means that even if, hypothetically, he had errors in PARTS of his reasoning, eventually there would be enough "time-equivalent" (beyond our universe) to correct them by whatever means necessary. Furthermore, God cannot sin and is entirely self-consistent and entirely focused on truth, so no part would scorn any other part for daring to consider alternatives, and only sound support would ever be used in his reasoning. (Of course, there's also the angle that as the Creator of everything, he knows what he has done, without even technically needing to observe, though he does that too, of course.)
Note that this reasoning also means that prior to testing which other religious views are correct, it also makes less sense to trust their 'gods' who are finite, fallible, or otherwise inconsistent with an infinite, beyond-time God of ultimately trustworthy knowledge and honesty. Like with the basic infinite existence part of the causality proof, other religions and atheism really should be lumped together, if there's any lumping to be done, including all theistic evolution versions (imagining a very limited god unable to supernaturally create quickly and cruel to force death and suffering on beings before sin), rather than "evolution versus religion" or "atheism versus religion." Of course, other religions fail truth/falsehood tests too, such as Islam's misconception that the Christian Trinity is the Father, Son, and... Mary... Of course, in today's society at least in English-speaking countries like my own, America, these other anti-biblical religions are not very front-and-center opposition to Judeo-Christianity, so it makes sense to focus on the one that is most popular.
So, what we KNOW about the human collective-intelligence system of scientists is that it is merely finite, with limited "processing capacity", it is highly emotional, it deviates most strongly from the scientific method on the big questions, and even if all its members were honest truthseekers, it still could take thousands of years to inform each one why they were wrong so that they change their minds.
Even under the best-case scenario, where we assume every scientist would change their minds, we thus KNOW that this system is not very reliable. By contrast, personal investigation into the science itself, learning how to do sound logic, etc. (the truthseeking method) is far, far, far more reliable as a way to seek truth.
What we are TOLD (but for sake of argument we "not" know, for now) is that God cannot be wrong, knows everything, and is completely honest. So even from a blind-faith perspective, it really should be obvious to everybody that those trusting God are making a much smarter "gamble" than those trusting peer-filtered majority-scientists.
Of course, we do NOT really gamble; we believe in God because for a vast variety of reasons we become convinced he really is real. I've gone into that enough elsewhere. But my point here is, although it may take some time to explain to the people who aren't thinking these things through, there is no rational reason to be intimidated by their constant demands for peer-review, etc. (Of course, our own scientists do use peer review, and often point out contrary evidence that's already peer-reviewed by the evolutionists themselves... and actually WE are the peer review correcting evolutionists! And we have scientists; the only actual difference is that we are -- currently -- the minority.)
In other words, we need to challenge them to stop relying on blind trust in peer-review, in scientists (of either/any worldview), or in majorities (or for that matter minorities, but generally trusting a minority makes more sense!). If they insist on using blind trust, then point out that God makes a lot more sense to trust. But always challenge them to stop using copouts and seek to understand the science personally. They don't have to know all the equations by heart, but a layman CAN understand the key concepts and behaviors of how things work.
Either they should personally take the time to hear out both sides (to make sure no side gets away with censorship) and try to conceptually understand the science logically, or they really should stop acting as if they have any idea what they're talking about, and should simply admit they don't know what to believe and must decline to take an opinion. It is not rational to dogmatically defend an opinion based only on blind trust -- usually they will point this out themselves, but they seem unable to realize it is THEY who do the thing they condemn, not us.