Wednesday, May 28, 2008

A computer program designed to explain how religion evolved!!

Well, there you go. Someone designed a simple computer program that may explain how that nasty little problem known as (gasp!) religion evolved. Of course an evolutionary anthropologist designed the program and apparently actually believes he's on to something...*eyes roll*. What is wrong with these people?

Go to Uncommon Descent after you read the article to get a dose of reality in regard to computer programs and evolution. Then check out Creation Evolution Headlines for further commentary on this ridiculous notion...

In spite of the movie Expelled, and years of sophisticated criticisms of evolutionary theory, the Darwinists continue to flaunt their stupidity in public. We don’t persist in the tedious task of unraveling their tangled logic with any hope of changing them. They are incorrigible, hooked and stoned on Darwin beyond recovery. For our sophisticated and discriminating readers, in hopes of empowering the paradigm revolution, let’s do the analysis.

Always start by looking for pertinent questions to ask. To an evolved monkey-brain, what is the difference between real information and unreal information? What is information in the first place? What is reality? Can a theoretical system built on chance and necessity include abstract concepts and laws of logic? (Remember, without laws of logic, you can prove anything, and if anything is true, nothing is true – including evolutionary theory.) How can a genetic trait produce abstract concepts such as information? What kind of genetic trait attracts the members of the population who do not have the trait? What is an evolutionary force? Can you write an equation for it? How can I tell a selection force that maintains unreal information from one that causes real information to “emerge”?

Good questions just warm the discussion up. Next, test the evolutionists’ logic on their own assumptions. They are assuming that their theorizing is immune from the same selection forces. That’s a no-no. Inconsistency and arbitrariness are two sins in logic. If you commit either, you can prove anything, even opposite propositions, therefore you prove nothing. Let’s see if evolutionary theory itself survives Dow’s Law. He said that selection pressures on a genetic trait caused a population to wish to spread unreal information. We observe that many Darwinists are eager to spread their ideas with evangelistic fervor. Could we propose that the Darwin-dogma trait is genetic, that it emerged from selection pressure, and that evolutionary theory consists of unreal information? Indeed we could. The evolutionist has no basis to define reality, information, logic, truth or evidence. He’s just doing what selection forces in his animal past are making him do. He cannot stand outside the world of the evolved like some all-wise Yoda on a platform of neutrality and wisdom, observing what the silly humans are doing.

Once you diagnose the Yoda complex in the evolutionist, the argument is over. It becomes obvious his theory is self-refuting. If it refutes itself, guess what! It is refuted – it is necessarily false. Dow’s own theory cannot survive itself. The gig is up. Salvation requires repenting of this sin of arbitrariness and inconsistency, and accepting the premise that at least some religious beliefs (certainly not all) might be real. Why? Because meaning requires an ultimate reference point. Reality requires a reality-Maker. Information requires an intelligent Communicator. Logic requires a Thinker who is neither arbitrary nor inconsistent. Truth requires a truth-Teller. Only with those presuppositions can one reason inductively and deductively. Only with those presuppositions is there a standard by which to make sense of the world. The evolutionary world view does not provide a pole star; it wobbles incontrollably and chaotically. What’s up one moment is down the next.

For overkill, let’s remind the evolutionist that writing programs requires intelligent design, and human designers are subject to bias (see 04/26/2008 commentary). Dr. Dow conveniently defined his parameters to guarantee the outcome his bias preferred. Could his critics design a computer program that shows Darwinism emerging and becoming established in a population? Certainly. Could they decide that Darwinism represents unreal information? Why not? Sounds like fun.