bJust consider the extraordinary marvel of the human brain and personality, however the two are related. Apart from being an inveterate thinker, I need to show my hand: I have very little knowledge of the physiological make-up of the brain. From what little I do know (and if a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so be it) I believe that the brain is such an astronomically vast assembly of neural networks and synapses; the connections between neurons – plus a whole lot more, that there is no chance it could have ever developed by a process of Darwinian accidents, that we now generally call mutations. So, I shall develop this briefly, and in not too technical a manner.
Incidentally, Charles Darwin didn’t have the genetic understanding of mutations in his day, and sometimes referred to them as ‘monstrosities.’ But, this is my point: I suggest this amazing entity of the individual and their brain is so incredible that it defies comprehension. We are just too complex for a mindless accident to be considered a serious contender of a sufficient cause for our complexity. This is Clever crediting ‘mindless accidents’ with powers and potentialities they simply do not possess. Now I know, like Stephen Hawking, if you have imbibed the philosophy of naturalism, everything must have a natural explanation, without exception, and ‘spontaneous’ events just occur, like the Big Bang, as if that was a sufficient cause of all successive events to follow, including the accidental emergence of life.
What, however, this vast cascade of events doesn’t explain is how mutations in organic functioning systems, like a fish’s brain, are able to acquire an increase of useful, progressive information. What we do know is that a mutation is a genetic copying mistake, in which in reproduction usually an extremely small part of the copying process gets scrambled; a jumbled sequence, a repetition, a tiny omission, or whatever. But the point is mutations do not, by any means, whether spontaneously or not, generate new sections of functionally advanced code. It doesn’t happen.
Genetic data is already there
What does happen is sometimes called ‘microevolution’ – the commonly occurring adaptation and even branching into new speciation from the rich potential of genetic material that is already there in a given population. And so, moths adapt their colours, furry animals in cold climates tend to grow longer protective coats; fish in dark waters tend to lose their sight, and so on. Often in these cases there is a loss of genetic information in specific populations, but there are no gains of genetic data that progressively enhance performance in the succeeding generations. It is Darwinian wishful thinking, and the core of his scheme is not evidence-based science.
Darwin’s theory of biological evolution is a belief based on astronomical numbers of accidents, so powerful that they drive the whole process, and get us to where we are today. I hope you don’t believe it, because it never happened! Darwin’s astronomically numerous accidents were non-events. His theory sounds plausible because he needed to convince himself, and he was gifted at making natural explanations to sound as if they were sufficient causes for a vast, linked succession of causes and events, all connected in an upwardly ascending path of progress. Of course, as an upper middle-class gentleman in nineteenth century, Victorian England, his a priori belief was in the inevitability of human progress, and specifically of white-skinned, civilised peoples.
Who knows if it’s all accidental?
But just suppose that Darwin was right, and that is all we are – a gigantic, meaningless accident, how would we have ever found out? I mean, how do you discover true information, then process it by making objectively independent evaluations and conclude that this total event was in a category defined by the term ‘accident’? After all, don’t ‘accidents’ only have meaning relative to non-accidents? We are more complex than we care to let on, but of course, many have come to believe that naturalistic philosophy is the only custodian of final truth.
These issues are at the centre of the discussion about Intelligent Design. In my view, we already possess transcendental attributes of personality and moral responsibility, and a true knowledge that we are not accidents. And if we were accidents, we would never know; there would be no objective frame of reference by which it could be determined. We have been created and our reasoning and personal thinking is inherently transcendental, but flawed! And among other things, flawed thinking leads to wasted lives.
Fractures need fixing