An isolated atheist speaks his views on religion, politics, and the world around him.
C.S. Lewis (via imonlylovingyou)
This is a variant on the Argument for Failure of Imagination. Lewis’ argument is that because he cannot imagine that his mind could evolve in the way it has, the only other solution would have to be God.
There are several inherent flaws in this argument, the greatest of which being that just because you don’t know how something works, doesn’t mean that you must automatically relegate its existence/function to divine involvement. I’m certain that if Lewis had actually studied some academic journals in his time, he would have had a relatively decent understanding of how the brain works. The very wording of this quote dictates that he has only heard of vague generalities about how the brain works, and hasn’t delved into the subject to achieve a greater understanding of it.
Even if the brain were something we didn’t or could not understand, there is no reason to suppose that it was the god of the Bible that created it. There is no link in this quote between the brain’s functionality and its relationship to God as opposed to Allah, Shiva, or Gaia. Until Lewis actively defines what “God” is, there’s no way for him to demonstrate that God is what created the human mind.
Also, the Argument for Very Unlikely Things (or the Gambler’s Folly for you FORMAL logicians out there…) explains that even if the brain is just as likely to have developed the way it has as for milk to spill and make a map of London does that really matter? No matter how many times you flip a coin, the odds are always equal that it would have been something else; same with rolling a die, drawing a card, or selecting a grain of sand. No matter how unlikely it was for that event to happen, it would have been equally likely for something else to have occurred.
Finally, Lewis demonstrates a critical misunderstanding of Evolutionary Theory that befalls most Creationists— believing that evolution happens by chance. To keep this from becoming a lecture in genetics and biology, I will simply say that mutationis a random process, but natural selection is not, making evolution a clearly defined process where the organisms that best fill their ecological niche are most likely to pass on their inherited/learned traits and survive.
I have one statement and one question for atheists.
It’s time to rethink your “logic” because intelligent design is logical and very evident in the world.
Why don’t you reconsider your perspective ? If you want to base your belief on reason then find the reason by using logic. There is a God and He is logic. The is a God and he created you. It’s time to get to know Him.
Intelligent Design was blasted out of the scientific waters by Kitzmiller vs. Dover where it was exposed as a rebranding of Creationism. It is untestable, speculative, unmeasurable, and supposes the existence of an intelligent designer for which there is no evidence. It is one of the flimsiest, unscientific hypotheses that have ever come down the way.
Hitchen’s Razor: That which can be posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So please give us some evidence of intelligent design, and we may reconsider our position. Please keep in mind, though, that all evidence presented will be put under scrutiny (as is the scientific method) and if your evidence is found lacking or faulty, we will not accept it, and won’t bother to examine intelligent design any further until presented with new evidence.
The burden of proof is on you, my friend. Please let us see what you have to offer.
-Heribert Nilsson (via conservativ)
We’ve come a long way since the 1930’s where Nilsson was a professor of botany at Lund University where he made this statement. The fossil record has been vastly filled-out (including “transitional” forms such as Tiktaalik,) the theory of continental drift (and tectonics) have revolutionized our knowledge of the spread of life, and the discovery of DNA have all contributed in some way to evolutionary theory— and not one of these modern discoveries have been able to detract from it. They ALL contribute and supplement information that supports evolutionary theory.
Another issue with Nilsson was that he believed evolution could only be explained through Lamarckism (evolution through need/desire) so his experiments were bound to fail, because it’s been almost certainly proven that evolution occurs through natural selection via genetic mutation.
that #science restores my faith in humanity when #religion does just the opposite?