Naturalism at the end of its tether: New Scientist on “outsmarting evolution”
| December 26, 2016 | Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism |
From Joshua Howgego at New Scientist:
Evolution has built bias into our brains – here are the best ways to overrule your instincts and make better decisions about everything (paywall) More.
What? To the folk at New Scientist, we are merely products of evolution who probably cannot grasp reality (it is unclear that there is a reality to grasp). And therefore, even if we thought we were outsmarting anything, it would be an illusion, though whose or what’s illusion is unclear.
If Darwinism, the creation story of naturalism, is taken seriously, there is no I in I. Questions of truth are irrelevant but, of course, power is forever.
Don’t pay for this. Let’s spend our Christmas money on coffee and cookies and take them to unhappy people. 
See also: New Scientist astounds: Information is physical
and
Science fictions series 4: Naturalism and the human mind
Follow UD News at Twitter!
6 Responses to Naturalism at the end of its tether: New Scientist on “outsmarting evolution”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
He says that as if he believed he had free will.
I cannot speak for the staff at NewScientist but science shows us that we do not have the sensory apparatus to detect the whole of reality. There are many light wavelengths we cannot see, sound wavelengths we cannot hear, smells we cannot detect. We have no senses at all that can observe reality at the quantum level or monitor the billions of neutrinos streaming through our bodies every second. The mental model – not illusion – that we construct based on that sensory data is in many respects a highly-detailed representation of what is out there. It is fit for purpose in that it enables us to navigate that world in reasonable safety. But, good as it is, it is still a map, not the territory itself. We do not have the physical means to fully grasp the reality out there – assuming there is one – and anyone who thinks they do is deluding themselves.
One truth is that Darwin’s theory was about how life changed and diversified over time after it had appeared. It was never intended to be a theory of abiogenesis or how life might have been created. Yes, he speculated in private about how it might have happened but that was never part of the theory.
The point about power is apt, of course. Part of the religious resistance to his theory is clearly based on the fear that it undermines the authority – and, therefore, power – of the churches in society.
Sev, you’ve missed the point completely. Exactly who is this ‘I’ and ‘we’ that you kept referring to in your post?
There simply is no ‘I’ or ‘we’ in your atheistic worldview.
Then STFU.
Great. Then shut your pie hole and stop philosophizing as if you know something beyond mere pragmatism.
You are veering quite far off the pragmatic reservation.
STFU.
“Truth” is a meaningless idea. Pragmatic ideas that lead to greater survival are all that count. Why should anyone listen to your neural ramblings beyond mere pragmatism?
STFU you twit. If you were in my presence I’d shut you up with a pragmatic tire iron. Now, GFY.
Although I have scant hope, outside of God miraculously changing his heart, of Seversky ever admitting just how insane his Atheistic worldview actually is, none-the-less, for the sake of onlookers who happen onto our out of the way blog, I will lay out what News was alluding to in the Opening Paragraph in a little more detail.
First off, let us be VERY clear to the fact that ALL of science, every discipline within science, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Modern science was born, and continues to be dependent on, those basic Theistic presuppositions:
Moreover, if we cast aside those basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and try to use Atheistic Materialism, i.e. methodological naturalism, as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practicing science, then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.
Each of those self refutations within the Atheistic worldview are laid out in more detail on the following site:
Basically, Atheistic Materialism winds up in catastrophic epistemological failure for every level of reality that it seeks to explain. Put more simply, without God all rationality goes out the window for the Atheist.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview that is more antagonistic to modern science than Darwinian evolution, and Atheistic materialism/naturalism in general, have turned out to be.
Verse:
Of related note: Jonathan M had this on his last ‘apologetics academy’ simulcast: