Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in goo-to-you evolution. We are bombarded with dubious evidence for the "fact" of evolution. Contrary evidence is suppressed. That is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented here so people can learn something besides materialistic propaganda. בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

Monday, March 18, 2013

No Free Will According to Evolution

The rough summary of the atheistic evolutionary version of life, the universe and everything is: There was nothing. Nothing exploded. This caused stars, planets, galaxies and stuff like that. Through time and chance, life happened ("spontaneous generation", an unscientific philosophy taught by Aristotle). With the help of mutations and natural selection, time and chance made life evolve, upward, more and more complex. You are the product of no purpose, the slave of chemical impulses in your brain. There is no God, no final judgment, no eternal reward or punishment. When you die, you're worm food.And they want to take away our beliefs for that? What utter, utter rubbish.


Yet, to be consistent with atheistic evolution, there is no free will. We are reduced to chemistry and to environment, which in turn influences our chemistry. The one who claims that there is no God is responding to his chemistry. (For that matter, he has no right to complain about horrific murders, because it is simply one or more bits of rearranged pond scum eliminating other bits of rearranged pond scum.) So, it follows that he has no right to criticize those of us who do believe in God; if we praise God, show how science refutes evolution, ban obstreperous pinheads from our groups, well, it's not our fault because our chemistry makes it happen.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly... [including the idea that] human free will is nonexistent... Free will is a disastrous and mean social myth.”—William Provine, Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University.
In The Descent of Man, Darwin explained human behavior largely as the function of pre-determined—and often anti-social—instincts. For all of Darwin’s praise of man’s sociability, he wrote that “it cannot be maintained that the social instincts are ordinarily stronger in man, or have become stronger through long-continued habit, than the instincts… of self-preservation, hunger, lust, vengeance, &c.” What did this mean in practice? “At the moment of action,” wrote Darwin, “man will no doubt be apt to follow the stronger impulse; and though this may occasionally prompt him to the noblest deeds, it will far more commonly lead him to gratify his own desires at the expense of other men.”
Darwin tried to soften the implications of his view by going on to claim that men will learn to regret their impulsive actions and eventually this regret will create in them a conscience. However, Darwin did not convincingly explain why the conscience would trump instincts he earlier depicted as so overwhelming. Even if conscience is able to counteract the anti-social instincts in some men, presumably those who act anti-socially are only following their own strongest instincts. If this be the case, how responsible are those who act against society?

Labels