While I watch the periodic volley of ideas between Creationist and evolutionists, I am often amused by those who think they can eliminate the supernatural from their worldviews, ignore the logical consequences, and then live life as if nothing really changes. Evolutionists of the type noted here are a strange bunch, and it doesn’t get any stranger than demanding that those who disagree with them follow the evidence when the mental wherewithal to do so isn’t supposed to exist in the first place. Let me explain.
To follow the evidence means that once we encounter competing ideas, we can view the information associated with each and then, of our own free will, “choose” the one to which the info points. I actually have no problem with following said evidence on any given issue, but I do take issue with those who demand that we follow the “evidence,” when the “evidence” assumes the ability to do the very thing that Darwinists tell us isn’t possible in the first place – to “choose” one view over another.
After all, “choice” is the one quality about which Americans make much ado, and any thought of someone telling us what to “think” raises the rebel in us. So, here is the problem. Once the you eliminate the mind of man as an immaterial entity, then the one supposed human quality we all revere, human volition, of necessity falls with it. Hence, consider the consensus of those notable Darwinists honest enough to admit it.
According to Dan Barker, evangelical turned atheist, a purely natural world eradicates free will. “I am a determinist,” he boasts, “We have the illusion of free will, which to me is what ‘free will’ actually means.”
Michael Shermer, author of Skeptic Magazine, also tells us that “free will is useful fiction,” with Stephen Hawking concurring. “But if everything is determined by the laws of science,” notes Hawking, “then free will must be an illusion” (Black Holes and Baby Universes, 132).
Then, let these words sink in. “Science allows no place for the freedom of the will,” said John Searle (Minds, Brains, and Science, 92), with Thomas Metzinger adding, “Determinism is obviously true. The next state of the physical universe is always determined by the previous state.” Hence, “For every single…decision you will make, it is true that it is determined by your previous brain state” (http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_7.html#metzinger).
“No free will!”
Get it! If all of reality is merely physical, as evolutionists of said stripe tell us is, then human beings cannot rise above said reality. Evolutionary thinking, then, like any other worldview, is a package deal. That being the case, how can the evidence matter at all if the ability to choose doesn’t really exist? Further, how can one be “convinced” or “unconvinced” if the supposed mental freedom to do so is merely “illusional” or only “useful fiction?”
Ironically, then, the disconnect between naturalism and the real world makes Genesis 1:1 the rational winner by a landslide…”In the beginning God,” and the fact that you chose to read this column in the first place or even declare my column either “convincing” or “unconvincing” stand as exhibit number one and two respectively. Welcome to the theist’s world, generally, and the creationist’s world, particularly, the only world in which the words “evidence,” “convinced,” and “unconvinced” mean anything at all.