The “Evolutionary Worldview”

Obviously not. It’s also obvious that you’re hiding behind the excuse that anyone who disagrees with you must have rejected something they know to be true and consequently be unable to see other things that you think are truths.

No it isn’t. 2 Peter 3 is about the second coming of Jesus, not about evolution.

Yes there is. Like I said there is no way in hell our species could survive for the length of time it has in the type of rapidily changing environments we have if our cognitive falculties weren’t mostly reliable. Yes, there are some false beliefs that could aid in survival but they are a small subset of all false beliefs. Can we hundred percent know for a fact our faculties are reliable? No. And neither can you. Can you show me that you aren’t actually in a padded room right now and that you aren’t hallucinating all of this? No. But we can rely on probabilities and probability says our cognitive faculties are more likely to be reliable with what we know about human history.

You can’t track to the source something that you haven’t been told about, or have been told doesn’t exist.

But why should I believe you track things to their source? You didn’t track the Lewontin quote to its source, you cited a creationist article instead.

I know I’ve been lied to. I’ve been lied to by creationists and IDers. Thousands and thousands of times. That’s why I know you’ve been lied to as well.

1 Like

Accurate information is not needed for survival. Effective information is needed, if any information at all. What information do bacteria possess? Yet, bacteria are more evolutionarily successful than humans. What matters is that you believe what happens to allow you to survive. Nothing more. The ability to grasp lofty abstract notions like “truth” is a luxury your worldview simply cannot reasonably accommodate

What follows is that it’s an intellectually bankrupt worldview based upon mythology. Mutations are not the cause of life or complexity. They are the enemy of it.

That statement implies a circular argument. In your “worldview”, that is to say if we join you in making your assumptions , it makes sense to make your assumptions. Well congratulations.

You have not grasped my argument. I understand it’s circular. Every worldview is circular with respect to starting assumptions. That is indeed unavoidable.

My argument goes further than this. My argument is that we can draw an inference from the fact that we do in fact have to assume our senses are reliable and our ability to reason is effective. We need a worldview that accommodates this. Atheism and materialism cannot. They simply start with a blind leap and they never get beyond that blind leap. Evolution cannot reliably be expected to grant us truth knowledge. The fact that we apparently have the abilities we must assume we do have points to our Creator. All knowledge, and all truth, points to God. Without God, you must become like Pontius Pilate, and say in defeat, “What is truth?”

Look, I think you should take a break because you’ve been reduced to blatant incoherence. The things you are saying are so nonsensical you can’t even accurately describe your own position.

This is what it looks like when somebody gets upset and resorts to namecalling instead of logical argumentation.

It’s actually about both. It’s about scoffers who deliberately overlook creation and the flood, appealing instead to uniformitarian thinking, and on the basis of this they reject the second coming.

Are you seriously equating the lifestyle of bacteria to the lifestyle of humans?

I already responded to this and you deliberately ignored most of what I said. Based on that, why would you think I would continue any further discussion?

No you didn’t. You asked questions that were already answered in the passage I shared. It was you doing the ignoring

How does your worldview explain things like
Cognitive biases and faulty memories? These are much easier to explain on naturalism. Why would God create beings with these problems if he wanted to create beings capable of determining truth?

That’s because I have the article URL memorized and can type it easily. You can easily go the the original source from there by way of searching (as I have myself).

We’re not going to get anywhere. But thanks for your participation.

He didn’t. We rebelled and the Curse came in afterwards. We do not exist as God originally created and intended. We are twisted by our own rebellion.

Can you show that we once had no biases and perfect memories?

Can you read Genesis 1?

Yep. And I don’t ever remember it saying anything about cognition. Show your work, sweetheart.

I’m sure you’ve managed to convince yourself of that. Why do we demand people pass sight tests for driver’s or pilot licences? Do you think that has anything to do with how likely they are to get themselves and others hurt or killed?

Yes and what is it that would make some information be effective? What is the effective-making property of information in promoting survival anyway? To avoid things that really are threats, and to seek out and find things that really do sustain and help you propagate yourself. Being wrong about that literally directly translates to probabilites of survival or not.

Genetic, compositional, and environmental information. They have senses (in the form of various molecular receptors), and genetic and molecular networks of interaction that act on them. If a bacterium incorrectly senses the presence of a nutrient far away, and then expends all it’s remaining energy spinning it’s flagellum swimming towards it, yet doesn’t actually find it because it isn’t there, then it dies, does not pass start, and does not collect 2000 dollars.

Yes, and they are remarkably good at detecting and acting on environmental influences.

Yes and if you believe things about the world that are completely wrong(as in the opposite of, or mostly in contradiction to actual reality) it would be really strange indeed if this just so happened to still systematically promote survival.

Being right about your beliefs in what is likely to be dangerous, and what is not, and what can be eaten, and where to find it, seems to me more likely to promote survival, than being systematically wrong in those beliefs and still nevertheless surviving and reproducing successfully.

What you’re saying, while conceptually possible(as in merely imaginable, an incredibly low bar), is nevertheless intrinsically less plausible than the alternative that true beliefs promote survival better and more often than false ones.

You declare, but have advanced no argument to support. Meanwhile you just invoke yet another one in a seemingly endless line of bare and mere assumption to “justify” it on yours.

1 Like

So it’s conceptually possible that you have no accurate knowledge of anything, but rather you have knowledge that, while false, happens to help you survive. Can you be clear that that is what you are saying here?


This is a copy of my question I left for you 18 hours ago.

Is there a Biblical reason that you think God would never use evolutionary processes to generate life forms?

Yes, possible, as in imaginable. But that is all it is, an imaginary situation. You have no way of showing this idea actually obtains. And for the reasons explained above, it is less plausible than the alternative.

It simply makes more sense that correctly understanding the real world is more likely to promote survival, than it is that incorrectly understanding the real world is more likely to promote survival.

No, that’s a problem. It’s not possible at all within my own worldview, but within yours it is a possibility that you would have no way, in principle, of ever discounting.

In other words, you don’t have any certain knowledge of anything. All you have is assumptions and allegedly ‘plausible’ conjectures.

You say it’s “imaginary”, but how could you know it is only imaginary? You have already admitted it as a real possibility, and you would have no way of knowing, on your own worldview, that that possibility was not also an actuality.

If one party wants to use words as a bridge but the other party wants to use words as a weapon to score points for his side, not much will be accomplished.

1 Like