One concern that I have with evolution is that is assumes natural selection.  Natural selection may justify and explain many things and in fact on a micro level I agree that natural selection exists and is beneficial in many respects.  I believe this allows for animals to adapt slowly using the genetic code embedded in the species allowing for versatility of species (Something an intelligent designer would want in a biosphere) however I see no proof that everything could be explained this way.  There are far too many aspects which simply would put the creature at a disadvantage for a long train of generations prior to utility giving the mutation or change any benefit. 


A primary example is the evolution of logic or reason.  We assume logic or reason by virtue of a scientific discussion because without higher though there would be no point in such discussions because we would be unable to determine any type of ultimate truth but only temporary utility.   Let us consider the evolution of higher order thought which must be assumed as a premise for evolution because evolution is based on higher order thought and if we assume that we have no higher order thought than no science or philosophy of any kind has any significance. 

If logic is assumed then evolution must explain how we came from lower order thought to higher order thought and this jump must have occurred through natural selection.  Now let us look at the difference between higher order thought and lower order thoughts.   Now lower order thought would be on the order of instinct.  Instinct can be explained by natural selection in my mind and natural selection would make instincts very keen and most likely to help the species to survive.  So this raises the first question, if natural selection is in control of instincts which are natural and immediate proper responses to situations why is there a need for higher order thought and how would higher order thought initially give any benefit to the primary individuals who had it?  If anything the exception to a set of instincts made from generations of natural selection should make those individuals weaker and more importantly a danger to the other individuals leading to their being ostracized and not uplifted. 

The proliferation of higher order thought would require that this feature be beneficial to not only survival but to reproduction.  Yet as I speak to those with lower level thought processes than myself I find that there is no awe or benefit to higher order thought when talking to those with only lower order thought because they don’t understand that you have something they do not anymore than a dog is envious of our political debates there simply is no comprehension and thus the natural response of instinct and lower order thought is that higher order thought is not only a waste of time but a danger to the community.  This does not lead to proliferation but extinction of such thought.

Once generations establish a set of instincts and reaction higher order thought allows for manipulation and second guessing of those instincts which would weaken individual, family and race not strengthen them.  If a man hesitates to kill an attacker for example because of higher order though there is no benefit and a man who believes with religious fervor because of higher order thought brings no benefit to his family or tribe.  In fact until a level of invention and civilization is reached the interim leads to weakness and vulnerability.  All would need to develop some higher order thought simultaneously so that those with the highest order thought could manipulate those with lower levels of higher order thought.  Some higher order thought would be necessary to give advantage to those with advanced higher order thought however but what on earth could bring about such a wide spread mutation to higher order thought?  That I don’t know for I can think of no scientific reason that man would depart from his instincts which had been honed for generation to a weak and vulnerable position of second guessing those instincts based on faulty ideas and premises.  In fact even today man is weaker than animals in survival one on one without invention or civil society because man balks at eating certain things due to higher order thought and hesitates to make certain decisions that animals make without hesitation due to honed instincts. 

The more I consider the quandary the more I am convinced that logical reasoning and higher order thought cannot possible evolve slowly over time if instincts and lower order thought come first and certainly instinct and lower order thought could not come after.  Therefore since evolution and science are premised upon the accuracy and validity of higher order thought evolution either is false because it does not explain higher order thought and therefore doesn’t explain our present state or else it is correct but correct only in coincidence because we can’t possible know if it is correct because we can give no more weight to higher order thought than lower order thought because all that is needed is to impresses the opposite sex and survive meaning that utility and not  accuracy is the only certainty in our higher order thought.  While on this point does higher order thought get you very far with the ladies?  I find it to be a hindrance personally.  In fact I have found no time in history when higher order thought gave men a distinct advantage in reproduction since higher order thought tends throughout history to not be an attractor and those without it are able to freerider so that those without higher order thought processes get many of the benefits in survival by using or copying those with greater intelligence.   If anything I’d say that while our technology and body of knowledge is growing our intelligence is not.  While the sheer numbers of humans now alive allows for great knowledge and invention I see no proof that we are on average any smarter intellectually without the body of knowledge being fed to us than where any generations before us but instead perhaps the contrary.  For the body of knowledge and the opportunity we have I see much of history that seems would have made far better use of our resources than we have.  If anything I’d say there has been a long run dumbing of the gene pool perhaps since antiquity.   


So this topic was just on my mind tonight so let’s start a discussion on the topic and see if it leads anywhere.


I am a creationist... not because I am a "faith based nut" but because after rational evaluation I find that it takes less faith to believe in a designer than to believe the alternative theories.  


First, I find it easier to believe that the present rules where established by some order rather than by chance because that would explain why the laws of thermodynamics and other rules of science such as Pastures law don't preclude our presence.  Simply, if we assume that the present state of things is constant than not only could we reverse engineer the process that creates lives and changes that life but we should be able to recreate it.  WE CAN NOT... therefore it is easier for me to believe that the laws are established and where set aside rather than to believe the alternative which is either that there are exceptions to the laws we don't understand (Which allows for intelligent design by virtue of our lack of understanding) or in the alternative that our laws are not constant and therefore any effort to find a solution to why we are hear or anything in the past or future for that matter is irrelevant.  Either way precludes the assumption that we understand the natural course of events because frankly given our current body of knowledge we can't explain why we are here without assuming some suspension of the laws that govern our universe and it gives me comfort to think that this suspension was intentional and with purpose rather than random chance... 


Liberty, power, philosophy, Freedom, Taxes, Government , Immigration, Corruption