There is no satisfying the creationists, it seems, nor making them see reason and logic, for these are apparently concepts with which they are unfamiliar.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/never-assume?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=neverAssume
First of all, they employ the familiar tactic of conflating evolutionists with atheists, when this is demonstrably not true. I refuse to argue it any more, but they hope that it comes to be perceived as true if they repeat it enough.
Jason Lisle argues that in using reason and logic you assume the existence of God because He created reason and logic. This shows exactly that Lisle has no grasp of the concept, as he's just demonstrated the idea of circular reasoning.
The author also makes the false assertion that evolutionists believe in absolute moral standards that should not exist in a world supposedly created by chance. Certainly a roomful of "evolutionists" wouldn't agree as to whether there are absolute moral standards, with Christians saying that there are and atheists disputing that. This very argument seems to imply that if humans are a product of evolution, as they most assuredly are, then why bother to be moral, which doesn't speak much for their own ideas about morality. A person is moral because it is the right thing to do, not because the person is a special creation, or fears divine retribution. Or at least it doesn't say much for your morals if the only reason you are moral is because of fear of punishment.
The last bit of the article deals with Lisle's problem with the idea that "order arose from disorder." I'll deal with it another day as I'm too tired to bother now.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/never-assume?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=neverAssume
First of all, they employ the familiar tactic of conflating evolutionists with atheists, when this is demonstrably not true. I refuse to argue it any more, but they hope that it comes to be perceived as true if they repeat it enough.
Jason Lisle argues that in using reason and logic you assume the existence of God because He created reason and logic. This shows exactly that Lisle has no grasp of the concept, as he's just demonstrated the idea of circular reasoning.
The author also makes the false assertion that evolutionists believe in absolute moral standards that should not exist in a world supposedly created by chance. Certainly a roomful of "evolutionists" wouldn't agree as to whether there are absolute moral standards, with Christians saying that there are and atheists disputing that. This very argument seems to imply that if humans are a product of evolution, as they most assuredly are, then why bother to be moral, which doesn't speak much for their own ideas about morality. A person is moral because it is the right thing to do, not because the person is a special creation, or fears divine retribution. Or at least it doesn't say much for your morals if the only reason you are moral is because of fear of punishment.
The last bit of the article deals with Lisle's problem with the idea that "order arose from disorder." I'll deal with it another day as I'm too tired to bother now.
Comments
Post a Comment