According to evolution, all life on Earth originated through a series of random events filtered by natural selection. That is, every now and then there is a random change, called a "mutation", to a creature's genes, caused by cosmic rays or chemicals or some other factor in the environment. If this mutation makes the creature less able to survive, then it dies out and the genetic change is lost with it. If this mutation makes the creature better able to survive, then it passes on those changed genes to its descendants and eventually that becomes the new "baseline" for further changes.
For example, suppose a mutation enables a creature to run just a little bit faster. Then it will be better able to escape from predators, or better able to catch prey.
I'm sure one could get nit-picky and quibble with something I said there, but I think that's basically a fair description of the theory.
If a human being is a product of evolution, a pretty inevitable conclusion is that the human mind was not created by God, but is also a product of evolution. Generally the evolutionist supposes that the mind is purely a function of the brain. Consciousness and thought are the result of electrical and chemical processes in the brain. Or more correctly, consciousness and thought ARE electrical and chemcial processes in the brain.
Therefore, if the human mind is purely the result of random mutations filtered by natural selection, than the human brain is adapted for survival in a primitive world. That is, any thought process that leads to a greater chance of survival would be favored by natural selection. Any thought process that makes a creature less likely to survive would be filtered out by natural selection.
The ability to formulate accurate theories about abstract topics, like the origin of life, has no survival value in a primitive world. It is not at all clear that a creature who has a correct understanding of how black holes form has a better chance of surviving an attack by a predator than a creature with incorrect theories.
Indeed, in some cases, incorrect theories might be MORE conducive to survival. For example, a creature who believes that all mushrooms are poisonous will presumably not attempt to eat any mushrooms, and thus will avoid being poisoned. A creature who correctly believes that some are poisonous and some are not may try them to find out which is which, and be killed. For that matter, a creature who believes that mushrooms house the souls of his dead ancestors and that to eat them would be sacrilege would have a better chance of survival than a creature who does not believe such superstitions and who therefore eats mushrooms.
Do you see the paradox? If evolution is true, than our minds are not reliable to evaluation whether it is true. We have no way of knowing that it is true. The most we could say is that perhaps belief in evolution is more conducive to survival in a primitive environment.
The creationist, by contrast, believes that the human mind was created by God and that God created it to be capable of discerning truth. Unless the evolutionist agrees that the human mind was created by God, he cannot make any meaningful statements about the truth of evolution. But of course, if the human mind was created by God, then evolution is not true. It's a paradox.
© 2024 by Jay Johansen
No comments yet.