Evolution more rationtal than creationism/god

Hi Pro! I think that first, I will state that I am not going to deny the evidence that Pro presented for evolution. Rather, I will deny the reasoning used - reasoning which I believe to be self-refuting, illogical, and ultimately unreasonable. In that way, Creationism will emerge as the more reasonable world-view. Evolutionary argument against Evolutionism My first argument uses the very concept of Evolution to suggest that evolutionism 'shoots itself in the foot' so to speak. Essentially, you can't rationally accept that Evolutionism is correct. First, let's establish the central belief of the Evolutionist: All life arose through Natural Selection So what can we establish from this basic belief? Well to start with, imagine a population of creatures on a distant planet, who came to be by means of evolution. Whatever form they are in is because of millions of years of natural selection. Their behaviour therefore is adaptive - arising because it was beneficial to survival and reproduction. The adaptive behaviour is caused by events in their brains, which we can call the 'underlying neurology'. This, therefore, is also adaptive - it came about because of natural selection. This neurology also causes our beliefs. A belief from this point of view, is an event or structure in a person's nervous system. In more detail, the underlying neurology will be a neurostructure of some kind, and has two kinds of properties; neurophysiological properties - properties that detail the working of the brain (we can call them 'NP properties' for short), but if it is really a belief, it will also have a 'content' property - there will be a belief of 'p' - for example, that tigers are dangerous. But, in order to survive, it doesn't matter if these beliefs are true or false - as long as the underlying neurology causes adaptive behaviour, it will cause fitness and the organism will continue to survive and reproduce. It could be that their belief is that sabre-tooth tigers are friendly, and the way to hug them is to run away from them - in which case, the belief is false, but it causes fitness. This could and probably is the case for most of the creatures' beliefs; as long as any particular belief causes fitness, it makes no difference if it is true or false or not. There is no driving force or objective standard for truth upon this view. But how are these two pieces of neurology related? Well, according to evolutionists, the NP properties determine the content properties. Now what this ultimately means is that the content properties - the beliefs - have no binding on truth; they are merely the result of a blind process based on survival, and not truth. So if you take any particular belief, the chances that they are true therefore is about 50/50 - the probability that all of the creatures' beliefs are true is very low. But here's the thing - Evolutionists believe that we came about by the same processes - so, we can conclude that if evolutionists are right, then they cannot rationally believe evolution to be true, as Evolution in itself is a belief! It will just be another content property, that came about by NP properties that have no binding on truth, so the probability that evolutionists are right, by their very own beliefs, is low. [1], [2], [3] So, we can set out an argument: 1) Evolutionists believe that all life evolved through natural selection. 2) However, that belief is a defeater for itself 3) Therefore, you cannot rationally believe evolution by natural selection to be true. Occam's Razor The second point that I want to make here is that Evolution violates Occam's Razor in a severe way. Occam's razor is the logical law that states that the "simplest answer is most often correct". [4] To give an example: 'One of the fence posts is broken. Of possible explanations, a) A moose ran through it or b) some screws fell out of it because it is old, "b" is the more likely explanation.' [5] So, it is more rational to believe the most simple answer. So, let us think. What is the more simple answer, Evolutionism or Creationism? Well, I would strongly suggest that creationism is the more simple explanation. Evolution is vastly complex; it is a minefield of undiscovered fossils, hinging assumptions, unobservable macro changes and Natural processes. Natural selection is extremely complex as a concept, which requires certain environments and certain mutations at certain times for the finished product. This has to transverse to the whole animal kingdom. It requires billions of years in order for it to occur. What about creationism? Well, creationism states that a transcendent being (God) created the universe and everything in it a finite time ago. This is vastly more simple than the complex theory of evolutionism. Now Pro may respond by saying that our background information of evolution increases the probability. But I would stress that in the debate, I hope that I have shown how evolutionism falls short, and I think that there is just as much - if not more evidence of creation. One may point towards my first argument, or the fact that the universe is so finely-tuned as equally convincing background evidence, so the two theories are assumed to be of equal strength. (although arguments for those are for another debate!) So, Creationism is the simpler explanation. That means that it is the more rational to believe. Please note, I am not saying that because of Occam's Razor, Evolution is false, or that Creationism is true. I am merely stating that in terms of rationality, the complexity of evolutionary theory means that Creationism is the more rational between the two. (Through the laws of Occam's Razor) What evolution cannot account for Here, I want to reason that there are certain aspects of life that cannot reasonably be explained by Evolutionary Theory, especially with such a short time scale to work with, and in fact are so unlikely on an evolutionary world view that it just cannot be accepted with reason or rationality. These would include: -The origin of life (Abiogenesis) -The origin of Consciousness -The origin of Genders Just to name a few. So if someone is adopting an evolutionary worldview, it is simply irrational, because for it to occur, the time-scale required is far, far beyond the age of the earth. In their book 'The Anthropic Cosmological principle', Barrow and Tipler concluded that by the time certain aspects of Evolution would have occurred, "the sun would cease to be a main sequence star and incinerate the earth."[6] Conclusion Overall, I have given three reasons why I believe Evolutionism to be unreasonable: 1) The very belief that we arose from the Evolutionary Process is a defeater in itself; 2) Evolution is a violation of the logical law of Occam's Razor; and 3) The time-scale required for evolution to occur is far beyond the time the earth has even existed. In this way, I believe Creationism to be a more rational hypothesis than Evolutionism. I look forward to the final round. Sources: [1] http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com... [2] http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com... [3] http://www.calvin.edu... [4] http://examples.yourdictionary.com... [5] Ibid [6] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...