Does our title mystify you, dear reader? Good. Prepare yourself for some weekend entertainment from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled Evolutionary Mysticism and the End of Science.
It was written by Jake Hebert. This is ICR’s bio page on Jake. They say he received his Ph.D. in 2011 from the University of Texas and then — the same year! — he “joined ICR in 2011 as a research associate.” Jake’s entire working career has been at ICR. Here are some excerpts from his post, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Evolutionary secularists often fancy themselves as hard-nosed empiricists who are immune to the allures of “magical” thinking. However, as the inadequacies of materialistic naturalism become more and more obvious, we shouldn’t be surprised to see them embracing mystical ideas — a trend noted by ICR founder Dr. Henry M. Morris more than 30 years ago.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What a beginning! Then he says:
The origin of life and the origin of consciousness are arguably the two most difficult things for evolutionists to explain. They must insist that life somehow came from non-living chemicals even though there is zero experimental evidence for this. Another naturalistic puzzle is that if humans are nothing more than material, biological machines, why are they self-aware? And if humans are just biological machines, why don’t other machines such as personal computers possess consciousness?
Well, dear reader? You don’t have the answer to those questions, do you? Admit it — godless science has failed! Your Curmudgeon once offered an admittedly speculative proposal — that consciousness is nothing more than a neurological short-circuit, by which the brain senses its own activity. Most animals probably lack this ability and merely react to the external world. The first animal born with some neurons affected by this mutation must have been quite an oddity; but its unique brain served it well, so it survived and produced offspring. Anyway, Jake tells us:
Some evolutionists think they have an answer — a personal computer is conscious. And not just personal computers, but everything else in the universe! This belief, called panpsychism, holds that consciousness is a fundamental feature of matter itself, not just something humans possess. According to panpsychism, everything has some rudimentary level of consciousness, even individual particles. If this were true, then a self-aware object could perhaps move by its own volition apart from any outside influences. Incredibly, this is what some scientists are actually suggesting.
We never heard of Panpsychism, but Wikipedia has an article on it. You can study it if you want to, but we’ll ignore it and move on. Jake says:
The Bible provides a reasonable explanation for the existence of life and consciousness, both of humans and animals (Genesis 1:20-31, 2:7). God created mankind, and we have both an immaterial, spiritual component and a physical one. Likewise, the “higher” animals possess a possibly lesser form of nephesh [Hun?], consciousness, according to Genesis 1:21. But because evolutionists reject the Bible’s explanation, they are forced to propose ideas that have the potential to undermine not just future scientific advancements but also the vast scientific knowledge that has already been attained!
Wow! What’s he talking about? Jake explains:
For instance, why use Newton’s Laws of Motion to infer an object’s path through space if the object can change its own motion at will? If an object starts to move, did it move because an unbalanced external force acted on it or because the object chose to move? Do secular physicists really want to go down this path? And if they do, what is this going to do to science — especially physics?
Oaky, we’re convinced. No panpsychism for us! Let’s read on:
Evolutionists claim that acceptance of creation thinking will stifle scientific progress, but the exact opposite is true. We have modern science today largely because the founders of science had a Christian worldview.
We discussed that old clunker in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. If you go there, scroll down to “Great scientists of old were creationists.” Okay, here’s the end of Jake’s article:
This is one more reason why the creation vs. evolution controversy is not just a side issue. What one believes about origins is of immense practical importance. All scientists need to humble themselves before their Creator and get back to Genesis.
We urge you to follow Jake’s advice, dear reader. Humble yourself! And abandon your foolish belief in panpsychism.
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.