Intelligent Design

How My Five Year-Old is Like a Materialist

Spread the love

My five year-old granddaughter is brilliant.  But she shares a flaw with many other brilliant people.  She absolutely hates to say “I don’t know.”  And she sometimes just makes concepts up out of whole cloth in an attempt to disguise the fact that she does not know something.

Example:  This evening LK brought home Chick-fil-A.  Instead of packets of ketchup, for some reason she got packets of something called “Polynesian Sauce”  that is red and gooey but slightly less viscous than ketchup. The following exchange ensued:

Granddaughter:  Papa, this is not ketchup.

Papa:  It’s not?  What is it?

Granddaughter:  uh, hmmm, uh, it’s Fraxee.

Fraxee?  Not bad for a word she made up on the spot to disguise her ignorance.  I would pass it off as an amusing stage she is going through except for one thing that really alarms me — I think my granddaughter might be a materialist.  After all, if you ask a materialist how the mind can be reduced to the electro-chemical processes of the brain, they will say the mind is an “emergent property” of the brain.  They say this with a straight face apparently expecting you to just swallow down their confession of ignorance disguised as an explanation.   Instead of saying the mind is “emergent,” they might just as well take a cue from my granddaughter and say the mind is “Fraxee.” The accounts are equally explanatory.

 

 

 

 

56 Replies to “How My Five Year-Old is Like a Materialist

  1. 1
    mike1962 says:

    How does neurological interconnections produce the experience of “blue?” There is only one explanation:

    Fraxee!

    Sounds about right. ????

    Hat’s off to G.D.A.

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    Barry, could you link to some articles where people say that the mind is an emergent property of the brain? I suspect there’s a bit more to the argument than that, so I’d like to judge for myself.

  3. 3
  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    aarceng – can you be more specific about what parts of that Barry is referring to? Of the people mentioned who advocated for emergentism, the most recent publication cited is from 1925. Are you sure Barry hasn’t read anything written since then?

  5. 5
    ET says:

    So Bob is too dim to be able to use a search engine. And apparently proud of it.

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    ET – I rather hope a search engine wouldn’t help, as it would mean that not only was Google/Microsoft closely monitoring what Barry was reading, but it would also be broadcasting it to the world.

    I’m sure there is a lot of material about this online, but if it is not what Barry is thinking of, then basing a discussion on it would be to tart off with a mis-understanding. Better, I think, to make sure we’re all on the same page.

  7. 7
    EricMH says:

    Here is a great article pointing out the fallacy with Daniel Dennett’s emergentism.

    https://mindmatters.today/2018/08/can-a-game-prove-that-computers-could-really-think/

  8. 8
    ET says:

    Bob- You are clearly hopeless and proudly willfully ignorant. It doesn’t follow that a search engine could help you find what you are asking for if they have read Barry’s mind.

    And you have never cared about being on the same page before.

  9. 9
    Bob O'H says:

    EricMH – that piece is strange. We are carefully walked up to this paragraph:

    If the single cells in the Game of Life do not have cognitive states, what else might have them? Maybe a particular system of cells has a cognitive state. However, for such a claim to be intelligible, we need to make sense of what it means for something to be a system possessing internal states.

    and then we get arm-waving and vagueness. But if we can “make sense of what it means for something to be a system possessing internal states” then we do have emergentism, so it rather falls down at exactly the point when it gets to what it’s promising.

  10. 10
    EricMH says:

    @Bob O’H, perhaps you can be more specific about which part is “arm-waving and vagueness?” The article is saying Dennett is arm wavy and vague, then goes on to do a best guess what Dennett’s position is and why it doesn’t work. I’m happy to talk through any questions regarding the article.

  11. 11
    mike1962 says:

    The accounts are equally explanatory.

    I have differ on this. The child’s explanation is more innocent. Adults who play the “emergent” game should know better. But they do it anyway to prop up their (arguably destructive) agenda.

  12. 12
    Mung says:

    Maybe materialists are like a 5 year old.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    What does Mung have against a 5 year old? 🙂

  14. 14
    john_a_designer says:

    I think to understand “mind” or consciousness we have to begin with a few fundamental questions:

    Do you exist? How do you know you exist? Is your existence real?

    I would argue you know you exist (like I know it) because you are conscious of your own existence. However, if the conscious experience of your existence is real then what is consciousness? Does it have a chemical formula? A circuit diagram? If consciousness is created by the brain, how does the brain create it? And, what exactly does it create? Is it something we can measure and analyze like electrons, protons or photons? Supposedly we can “objectively” analyze the brain. Can we analyze and study consciousness in the same way?

    David Chalmers puts it this way:

    “Why should there be conscious experience at all? It is central to a subjective viewpoint, but from an objective viewpoint it is utterly unexpected. Taking the objective view, we can tell a story about how fields, waves, and particles in the spatiotemporal manifold interact in subtle ways, leading to the development of complex systems such as brains. In principle, there is no deep philosophical mystery in the fact that these systems can process information in complex ways, react to stimuli with sophisticated behavior, and even exhibit such complex capacities as learning, memory, and language. All this is impressive, but it is not metaphysically baffling. In contrast, the existence of conscious experience seems to be a new feature from this viewpoint. It is not something that one would have predicted from the other features alone. That is, consciousness is surprising. If all we knew about were the facts of physics, and even the facts about dynamics and information processing in complex systems, there would be no compelling reason to postulate the existence of conscious experience. If it were not for our direct evidence in the first-person case, the hypothesis would seem unwarranted; almost mystical, perhaps. Yet we know, directly, that there is conscious experience. The question is, how do we reconcile it with everything else we know?”

    David J. Chalmers, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory.

    I would argue that if consciousness and mind can’t be studied in the same way then ontologically it is different and distinct from the physical things we study in science. If it’s different and distinct from physical world then that’s dualism.

  15. 15
    JDH says:

    What is really odd is that any pro-materialist argument is essentially defeated by internal contradiction the first time the arguer uses “I” as a subject and ANY voluntary action (such as reading a certain paper, choosing a model of behavior, deciding upon a certain school of thought ). As has been well said, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God._

  16. 16
    Deputy Dog says:

    @Mung #12

    Maybe?

    It is obvious that Barry is implying that “materialists” are like immature children.

    The fact is, we are all born non-theists, until someone else puts theistic ideas into our heads.

  17. 17
    Barry Arrington says:

    Dog writes:

    “It is obvious that Barry is implying that “materialists” are like immature children.”

    Fascinating comment. I did not imply that. I don’t think I implied anything. What you see is what you get. I flat out stated that materialists are like my granddaughter when she makes up an “explanation” to disguise her ignorance. And they most certainly are. The fact that materialists are like her in that one respect does not mean they are like her generally. Get a grip.

  18. 18
    EricMH says:

    @DD for that matter we are all born solipists. That doesn’t make solipism the more rational position.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    We are all born theists with the knowledge of God fresh in our minds. We have to be brainwashed to think otherwise.

    Deputy Dog is clearly confused.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Deputy Dog claims that,,,

    “The fact is, we are all born non-theists, until someone else puts theistic ideas into our heads.”

    That claim is shown to be false.

    Out of the mouths of babes – Do children believe (in God) because they’re told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise – Justin Barrett – 2008
    Excerpt: • Children tend to see natural objects as designed or purposeful in ways that go beyond what their parents teach, as Deborah Kelemen has demonstrated. Rivers exist so that we can go fishing on them, and birds are here to look pretty.
    • Children doubt that impersonal processes can create order or purpose. Studies with children show that they expect that someone not something is behind natural order. No wonder that Margaret Evans found that children younger than 10 favoured creationist accounts of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts even when their parents and teachers endorsed evolution. Authorities’ testimony didn’t carry enough weight to over-ride a natural tendency.
    • Children know humans are not behind the order so the idea of a creating god (or gods) makes sense to them. Children just need adults to specify which one.
    • Experimental evidence, including cross-cultural studies, suggests that three-year-olds attribute super, god-like qualities to lots of different beings. Super-power, super-knowledge and super-perception seem to be default assumptions. Children then have to learn that mother is fallible, and dad is not all powerful, and that people will die. So children may be particularly receptive to the idea of a super creator-god. It fits their predilections.
    • Recent research by Paul Bloom, Jesse Bering, and Emma Cohen suggests that children may also be predisposed to believe in a soul that persists beyond death.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....god-belief

    Justin Barrett – Why Would Anyone Believe in God? – Veritas at UC Davis – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I3GAaswAkc

    Children are born believers in God, academic claims – 24 Nov 2008
    Excerpt: “Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....laims.html

    Moreover, “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose”

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

    Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study – Mary Papenfuss – June 12, 2015
    Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the “knee jerk” reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they’re purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the “Divided Mind of a disbeliever.”
    The findings “suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed,” writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers’ words, “religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.”
    Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or “default” human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether “any being purposefully made the thing in the picture,” notes Pacific-Standard.
    “Religious participants’ baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher” than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants “increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made” when “they did not have time to censor their thinking,” wrote the researchers.
    The results suggest that “the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs,” the report concluded.
    The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US.
    “Design-based intuitions run deep,” the researchers conclude, “persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them.”
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richa.....dy-1505712

    As the following video clearly shows, atheists have to mentally work suppressing their innate “knee jerk” design inference!

    Is Atheism a Delusion?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o

    As the preceding video clearly highlighted, it is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature.

    And yes, Denialism is a mental illness:

    Denialism
    In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.[1] Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.[2]
    per wikipedia

    Perhaps the two most famous quotes of atheists suppressing their innate ‘design inference’ are the following two quotes:

    “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
    Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit

    First off, contrary to what Dawkins stated, natural selection certainly does NOT explain the “appearance of design”

    “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
    Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary
    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

    Secondly, when just looking at a cross section of DNA, even before getting into the astonishing multiple overlapping coding within DNA, it is easy to see why Crick stated that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”

    Cross Section of DNA – google search
    https://www.google.com/search?q=cross+section+dna&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi4uLGe_ILdAhVI7qwKHXBPCncQ_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=782#imgrc=_

    Thus in conclusion, the Christian is well justified in trusting his inborn intuition that the world is Designed. And the Atheist is found to be artificially, and without empirical warrant, suppressing that same inborn intuition in Design.

    As molecular biologist Doug Axe stated in his book “Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed”, “Our intuition was right all along.”

    “Our intuition was right all along.”
    – Doug Axe
    https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Biology-Confirms-Intuition-Designed/dp/0062349597

    Verse:

    Romans 1:19-20
    For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

  21. 21
    EricMH says:

    @ET I cannot say I was born with knowledge of God. However, when my parents told me about God it made a lot of sense.

  22. 22
    Deputy Dog says:

    Interesting. Arguments have gone all the way from “children act like materialists and make stuff up” to “children instinctively know the truth that God exists”

    Can you theists get any more contradictory amongst yourselves?

  23. 23
    ET says:

    Deputy Dog:

    Arguments have gone all the way from “children act like materialists and make stuff up” to “children instinctively know the truth that God exists”

    What? For once it would be nice to see our cowardly opponents actually make a case instead of just spewing nonsense as if that is all it takes.

    Also the two statements aren’t even contradictory, even as misrepresented. Just because a child doesn’t know everything and tries to fill in the blanks doesn’t mean the child cannot know anything.

  24. 24
    ET says:

    EricMH- Can you remember anything about your 1st year?

  25. 25
    R J Sawyer says:

    ET

    EricMH- Can you remember anything about your 1st year?

    I can’t remember what I had for dinner last night.

  26. 26
    ET says:

    R J Sawyer:

    I can’t remember what I had for dinner last night.

    Just go look in your trash or recycle bin to see what frozen dinner you microwaved. Or is the empty package still laying around? 😉

    Also check for a McDonald’s receipt in your front pocket

  27. 27
    EricMH says:

    @ET, yes I have memories from when I was 1 and 2, which I’ve confirmed with my parents.

    @Deputy Dog, original sin makes sense of this seeming contradiction.

  28. 28
    Deputy Dog says:

    @EricMH #27

    That the slave master lets us run on our leashes a bit, so that we can choke ourselves? Yeah, I’ve heard that rationalization before.

    As usual, God’s behavior is consistent with him not existing at all.

  29. 29
    ET says:

    As usual Deputy Dog is too cowardly to actually make a case.

    That the slave master lets us run on our leashes a bit, so that we can choke ourselves?

    Spoken like a 3 year old petulant child.

    As usual, God’s behavior is consistent with him not existing at all.

    It is very telling that you have nothing that can explain our existence and can only hurl crap as if it means something

  30. 30
    ET says:

    EricMH:

    @ET, yes I have memories from when I was 1 and 2, which I’ve confirmed with my parents.

    Cuz they have ironclad memories. I asked about your first year.

    @Deputy Dog, original sin makes sense of this seeming contradiction.

    DD made up the contradiction with its misrepresentation. There clearly isn’t a contradiction just as I commented on

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    The only fatal self contradiction was from Deputy Dog. Deputy Dog claimed, without reference, that it was a fact that we are all born non-theist. He was shown to be wrong in that claim. He did not apologize for his false claim but tried to double down on it. ET is right.

    The fact is that we are all born with a predisposition to believe in God. Moreover, it is now shown that even professional scientists cannot escape deep seeded belief that there is a purpose and teleology behind things. i.e. That there is a God.

    Moreover, if Deputy Dog holds that evolution somehow produced this false deep-seeded belief in God, then he must also hold that evolution is capable of producing all sorts of false beliefs that we cannot trust. Darwinian evolution being one of those false beliefs that we cannot trust.

    In other words, Darwinian evolution is a self refuting worldview.

    Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism – Mike Keas – October 10, 2012
    Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:).
    Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga’s nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states:
    “Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not.”
    Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305.
    http://blogs.christianpost.com.....ism-12421/

    Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015
    Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false.
    To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
    So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,,
    Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.
    The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94171.html

  32. 32
    R J Sawyer says:

    BA77

    The only fatal self contradiction was from Deputy Dog. Deputy Dog claimed, without reference, that it was a fact that we are all born non-theist. He was shown to be wrong in that claim. He did not apologize for his false claim but tried to double down on it. ET is right.

    The fact is that we are all born with a predisposition to believe in God. Moreover, it is now shown that even professional scientists cannot escape deep seeded belief that there is a purpose and teleology behind things. i.e. That there is a God.

    Doesn’t your statement support DD’s claim. If we have a pre-disposition for something, it means that we do not have that “something” at birth, only that our probability for acquiring that “something” sometime during our lives is high.

    I would agree that humans, for whatever reason, are predisposed to believe that there is more to life than just life. But to say that we are born theists is just not supported by the evidence. If we are born in a christian facility, we are more likely to believe in the christian God. If we are born in a Hindu family, we are more likely to believe in the Hindu gods. If we were born in ancient Roman times, we would be more likely to believe in the ancient Roman gods.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    “Doesn’t your statement support DD’s claim.”

    NO!

    As to the rest of your self contradicting gobbledygook, read my reference in 20, slowly if it helps, for clarity.

    FYI, I do not suffer trolls patiently.

  34. 34
    R J Sawyer says:

    RJS

    Doesn’t your statement support DD’s claim.

    BA77

    NO!

    DD’s claim was that all humans are born atheists (i.e., not believing in a higher being) and that any theistic beliefs develop later. You responded that babies are born with a predisposition to believe in God. Which, by definition, means that we are born not believing in God (i.e., atheist). I don’t mean to be contradictory, I just think that you may have used the wrong term when you said “predisposition”.

  35. 35
    ET says:

    R J Sawyer:

    But to say that we are born theists is just not supported by the evidence.

    How do you know? How many just-birthed people have been properly interviewed?

    The only evidence to refute the claim would be the evidence that life arose just because.

  36. 36
    ET says:

    R J Sawyer:

    DD’s claim was that all humans are born atheists (i.e., not believing in a higher being) and that any theistic beliefs develop later.

    For which no evidence was ever provided

    You responded that babies are born with a predisposition to believe in God. Which, by definition, means that we are born not believing in God (i.e., atheist).

    No, that is wrong. Buy a dictionary and a vowel

  37. 37
    R J Sawyer says:

    ET

    How do you know? How many just-birthed people have been properly interviewed?

    The only evidence to refute the claim would be the evidence that life arose just because.

    I agree with BA77 that we are predisposed to believe that there is more to our lives that just our existence. I think that is quite obvious. Every culture that we have run across have had some belief system, some creation story. That would not happen if we did not have a strong predisposition for it.

  38. 38
    ET says:

    It wouldn’t happen if we were not Intelligently Designed.

  39. 39
    R J Sawyer says:

    ET

    It wouldn’t happen if we were not Intelligently Designed.

    Perhaps.

  40. 40
    ET says:

    No, it’s a fact. The only reason we are so inclined is because we were designed that way. But then again there isn’t any other viable mechanism to explain our existence anyway.

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    Pointless trollish semantics aside, the reason we each have a predisposition to believe in God is because we are, each of us, created by God in “the image of God”.

    More specifically than than that, each of us are formed by God in our mother’s womb.

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    And while scripture has informed us of this fact for thousands of years,,,

    Jeremiah 1:5
    “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    Psalm 139:13
    For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

    ,, we no longer have to rely on scripture alone to know the fact that God created each of us in our mother’s womb but can now also, as was made clear in the “Darwinism vs Biological Form” video, appeal directly to empirical evidence to support our belief that God forms each of us in our mother’s womb.

    Here is another video, (and excerpt from the video), that goes along with the “Darwinism vs Biological Form” video which offers further compelling evidence that we each have an immaterial and eternal soul that is created by God:

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video
    https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y
    Excerpt: In the following video, entitled Quantum Entangled Consciousness, Stuart Hameroff states that ‘it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul’.

    “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/jjpEc98o_Oo?t=300

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    And to further substantiate my claim that we are, uniquely among all the creatures on earth, made in ‘the image of God’, I refer to the following,,,

    In 2014 a group of leading evolutionary scientists stated that, after 4 decades of intense research, they have “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,”

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    The late best selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession by leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject. Wolfe summed up his main argument in his book in the following quote: “In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.”

    “Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.”
    —Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech

    Simply put, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as bears, lions and sharks, etc.., nonetheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to somehow become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and, more specifically, by our ability infuse information into material substrates in order to create tools and objects that are extremely useful for our defense, our shelter, and for growing and hunting food, etc.. etc..

    What is more interesting still, besides the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information and have come to ‘master the planet’ through this ‘top-down’ infusion of information into material substrates,

    How Does The World Work: Top-Down or Bottom-Up? – September 29, 2013
    Excerpt: “The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.”
    http://www.npr.org/sections/13.....-bottom-up

    ,,, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    In the following video at the 48:24 mark, Anton Zeilinger states that “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” and he goes on to note, at the 49:45 mark, the Theological significance of John 1:1 “In the Beginning was the Word”

    48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”
    49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1
    Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw

    Dr. Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and who is also a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics, states, “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’, and that we therefore have a very deep meaning and purpose for our lives, than finding both the universe, and life itself, are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and, moreover, have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our unique ability infuse information into material substrates.

    Verses

    Genesis 1:26
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

    Perhaps a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God, and that our lives truly do have meaning and purpose, could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was indeed God.
    And that is precisely the claim of Christianity:

    And here a few videos that, IMHO, provide fairly compelling evidence that the claims of Christianity, and the claims of Jesus Christ in particular, are indeed true:

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NziDraiPiOw

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=5

    The Shroud of Turin – Evidence it is authentic
    Below is a summary of scientific and historical evidence supporting the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as the ancient burial cloth of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
    https://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

    Verses:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    John 10:30
    I and the Father are one.

  43. 43
    EricMH says:

    @ET, the memories correlate exactly with significant events. It’s unlikely they are false memories. And I’ve talked to a number of people with very early childhood memories, so such early memories are not rare.

    At any rate, I also remember when I first explicitly started believing in God, around 4 or 5. It made a lot of sense that God created the world, and I went on to attribute everything to God, including things that people had invented.

  44. 44
    jdk says:

    I was first introduced to the Bible and God in Sunday School about the age of six. By the time I was ten I felt certain that it couldn’t all be true. (Jonah swallowed by a whale? A talking snake?) I had read a lot of mythology during those years, and it was clear that the Bible stories were just more myths, despite what my Sunday School teachers told me.

    Also, my dear sweet grandmother taught me to say my prayers every night, but it was just a formality, as I couldn’t believe they were addressed to anything real.

    So to each his own.

  45. 45
    ET says:

    Whatever, Jack. We have all noticed that you have absolutely nothing that can explain our existence. All you can do is try to poke people who make a stand on the issue.

    So, yes, to each his own but yours is just pathetic.

  46. 46
    EricMH says:

    @jdk Yes, I definitely was skeptical about Christianity and what was taught and had questions about the Bible. Which is partly why I ended up becoming Catholic, because I could see as a child the Bible did not support Protestantism. But, I was also extremely skeptical of the easy secularism that others followed. It was obviously just a matter of them wanting to do whatever they wanted without an external authority figure, not based on any sort of rational decision. It was also quite ugly and distasteful and boring, so regardless of the truth of Christianity and theism, the alternative seemed both irrational and unattractive.

  47. 47
    jdk says:

    re 46: ErikMH writes,

    It was obviously just a matter of them wanting to do whatever they wanted without an external authority figure, not based on any sort of rational decision.

    I saw many people become secular for whom what you saw as “obvious” didn’t apply at all. Rather many of us went searching for justice, caring community, enlightenment about meaning, etc. through exploring those ideas, values, and emotions in a secular humanist context.

    So my mileage varies from yours.

  48. 48
    ET says:

    jdk:

    Rather many of us went searching for justice, caring community, enlightenment about meaning, etc. through exploring those ideas, values, and emotions in a secular humanist context.

    Umm, in a Darwinian world all of that is pure nonsense.

    Secular humanism is riding on the coat-tails of the religions it chooses to ignore.

  49. 49
    jdk says:

    From a more academic point of view, I think children are born predisposed to animism: they see things as animated just as they experience themselves, at whatever level of early cognitive development they are at, as animated. However, very early (earlier than we perhaps naively recognize), they start absorbing the cultural metaphysics, whatever it might be.

    If we look at the growth of religion from an anthropological point of view, the earliest religions seem to have been animistic: even at the mature level, key things, both living and not, are imbued with an animistic spirit.

    At some point, some of those animistic spirits became anthropomorphized into Gods, analogous to humans (such as with the Greek Gods.) This polytheism later condensed into monotheism in some places. And in the East, the transition from polytheism took a different path than with Western monotheism, leading to a couple of major ways the student of religion can now see metaphysical religious possibilities.

  50. 50
    ET says:

    Again, whatever. Given that we exist, the limited options for that existence and only one that can actually be tested, at least religions have some foundation in scientific truth.

  51. 51
    Erasmus Wiffball says:

    Barry Arrington,

    Polynesian Sauce

    INGREDIENTS

    Sugar, soybean oil, water, corn syrup, corn-cider vinegar, distilled vinegar, tomato paste, salt, paprika, mustard seed, modified cornstarch, beet juice, onion*, garlic*, xanthan gum, propylene glycol alginate, natural flavor *dehydrated.

    Your granddaughter has a discerning palate. The “natural flavor” is legally acceptable levels of mouse feces, insect parts, and the like, known in the jargon of the food industry as fracksy.

  52. 52
    kairosfocus says:

    EW, I remember my shock years ago on learning of acceptability thresholds for similar contaminants in for instance Chocolate. This is one of those issues where a very unpalatable regulation has a legitimate place. KF

  53. 53
    kairosfocus says:

    JDK,

    I find it interesting that you seem to imply that you framework for rejecting the Biblical worldview traces to in effect simple Sunday School lessons from ages 6 – 10.

    At that stage, we are not ready for abstract thought (I take Piaget seriously) and we are not at all likely to be exposed to the more complex lessons in texts such as:

    Rom 1: 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them.

    20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense.

    21 For even though [d]they knew God [as the Creator], they did not [e]honor Him as God or give thanks [for His wondrous creation]. On the contrary, they became worthless in their thinking [godless, with pointless reasonings, and silly speculations], and their foolish heart was darkened.

    Heb 1:1 God, having spoken to the fathers long ago in [the voices and writings of] the prophets in many separate revelations [each of which set forth a portion of the truth], and in many ways, 2 has in these last days spoken [with finality] to us in [the person of One who is by His character and nature] His Son [namely Jesus], whom He appointed heir and lawful owner of all things, through whom also He created the universe [that is, the universe as a space-time-matter continuum].

    3 The Son is the radiance and only expression of the glory of [our awesome] God [reflecting God’s [a]Shekinah glory, the Light-being, the brilliant light of the divine], and the exact representation and perfect imprint of His [Father’s] essence, and upholding and maintaining and propelling all things [the entire physical and spiritual universe] by His powerful word [carrying the universe along to its predetermined goal].

    Col 1:15 He is the exact living image [the essential manifestation] of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible], the firstborn [the preeminent one, the sovereign, and the originator] of all creation.

    16 For [d]by Him all things were created in heaven and on earth, [things] visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities; all things were created and exist through Him [that is, by His activity] and for Him. 17 And He Himself existed and is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. [His is the controlling, cohesive force of the universe.] 18 He is also the head [the life-source and leader] of the body, the [e]church; and He is the beginning, [f]the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will occupy the first place [He will stand supreme and be preeminent] in everything. 19 For it pleased the Father for all the fullness [of deity—the sum total of His essence, all His perfection, powers, and attributes] to dwell [permanently] in Him (the Son), 20 and through [the intervention of] the Son to reconcile all things to Himself, making peace [with believers] through the blood of His cross; through Him, [I say,] whether things on earth or things in heaven. [all, AMP]

    . . . much less, to serious instruction in worldviews analysis, the logic of being and major Bible-based historic creeds such as the Nicene and Athanasian, much less systematic theology.

    Just perhaps, some reconsideration on a more advanced exposure [cf. 101 here on in context], is in order.

    KF

  54. 54
    jdk says:

    That’s just when I started, kf, because the OP was about 5 year olds. I didn’t describe any about my further path concerning my thoughts on religion. However, such simple reasons for disbelieving the Bible, obvious to an 8 year old, as well as an early interest in mythology, certainly set the stage for a more mature evaluation as the years went by.

  55. 55
    ET says:

    Jack, you don’t have any place to talk about any “mature evaluation” because you definitely do not apply that equally.

    The OP is about 5 year olds because that is the mentality of a/mats

  56. 56
    Mung says:

    At least there’s a chance your 5 year old will grow out of it.

Leave a Reply