Bitten by Cruel Logic

If you think there is no objective truth, no transcendent moral standard, that we are all simply products of millions of years of evolution who behave according to our particular genetic disposition, there are some things you might want to think about.

You see, ideas have consequences.  They always do.  Any time you embrace a philosophical idea, you wittingly or unwittingly embrace the logical conclusions that come with that idea.  Whether you realize it or not, embracing a philosophical idea will sooner or later take you down the road to its logical conclusions…whether you want to go there or not.

Because when one of us embraces an idea, we tend to promote it to others.  Those others who embrace it promote it to still others.  And sooner or later, one or more of those adherents will put that idea in “Drive” and push the gas pedal to the floor and take it to the place it has always been pointed.

The video below is a short film from Brian Godawa, and it takes the idea cited in the first paragraph above out for a spin.

If you’re an atheist or an evolutionist, what do you say:  Ready to go for a spin?

53 Responses to “Bitten by Cruel Logic”

  1. F minus 🙁

  2. In most cases, evolution and origins in general is irrelevant. When something happened comes up far less and is far less relevant in a science class than how something happens.

    For the intrepid questioner who wants to know when something happened, the answer is pretty simple: for most of the last 2,000 years (or more), the dominant belief was that the earth was fairly young, i.e. a few thousand years; another theory posits that the earth could be 4.5 billion years. Neither side has conclusive proof, so investigate both theories for yourself.

    Adding the supernatural (which can’t be measured or proven) to the discussion of science adds no more than, say, adding speculation about evolution and millions of years and other things that we can’t measure or prove. Neither can be observed, measured or quantified because one exists in another realm/dimension and the other happened in the immeasurable and undocumented past (except for the documentation of the Bible, that is :-).

    As your analogy of the Ford assembly line illustrates, the question of how is far more relevant to the advance of science than the question of when.

    In fact, the obsession that began in the 18th Century and exploded in the 19th Century of answering the when of science really went outside the proper area for science in the first place. As I said, neither creationists nor materialists/naturalists can prove their theories, so their contentions fall more within the area of faith than science. Lyell, Darwin and their fellows have tried to force science to intrude on the area of philosophy, and it hasn’t worked out too well–resulting in something like that Pandora’s box of silliness you mentioned.

  3. In your third paragraph, you say that adding the supernatural to science adds no more than, say, adding speculation about evolution and millions of years since we can’t measure the past events. Oh I think adding the supernatural, which claims man knows there was and still is an absolute, all powerful, all knowing Creator who created all things and can explain all things is a little different than man just speculating on the age of the earth.

    Also, would you really want your children to learn in science cass that things like astrology, alchemy, voodoo etc are legitimate science because under the supernatural, they well could be considered as real. We are just now getting rid of those old suprenatural- based beliefs. Lets not bring them back which is what we would have to do if we added the supernatural to science, where things like Casper the Ghost hiding under your bed are possible.