Monday, May 25, 2015

Rebellious children - the smoking gun that evolution cannot explain humanity

I recently went shopping with my wife and four of our grandchildren. The grandchildren were...well being grandchildren. They were having a shared, rebellious episode in the store. The episode was nothing particularly alarming; it was simply that of small children who were being self-willed rather than being on a productive page.

A thought occurred to me while we were shopping. Given this normal tendency of children, humanity would have been killed off long we could become masters of the world. Rebellious children prove that humanity could not be the product of evolution.

The reason for this impossibility lies in the reasons that underlie why children rebel in the first place. God has gifted human beings with two properties: free will and capacity for abstract intelligence

For the purpose of this argument I will presume that evolution is a plausible explanation of the development. It is not because I do not believe that there are other difficulties, but to focus on one peculiar problem that would invariably occurred as primate would have begun  evolving into human if man were indeed the product of evolution: successful transition from instinctual predominant behavior to rational-volitional modes of behavior.

Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism constructs an argument related to the one I will develop here in this piece: Plantinga argues that evolution selects for belief that promote survival rather than for true beliefs. According to Plantinga, Naturalism via evolution would imply that our rational faculties would not be reliable enough to justify faith in, and arguments for, Naturalism. In this work I will take a different approach. I will begin by stating that lower animals do not have beliefs and do not act on  beliefs. Animals act in terms of pre-programmed responses to stimuli that we call instincts. While there may be some uncertainty in animal behavior, there is no free will and no rational, abstract thought process that governs decision-making.

What happens when that first intelligent ape-like creature is born. Intelligence and freedom come at a cost. This young ape-oid does not follow the instinctual pre-programming like his parents. The parents are not equipped to deal with an intelligent child, and the intelligent child behaves in ways that deviate from tested and robust instincts. Is this behavior advantageous?

Intelligence depends heavily on education and acquisition of a knowledge base. Most of the paths in trial by error result in error. Intelligence requires a heavy investment before it becomes an advantage. Intelligent ape-oids would represent both a quantum evolutionary leap and an evolutionary disadvantage in competing with their instinctual-driven cousins who evolve through incremental modification of instincts. Modern civilization protect our fragile children, and ancient humanity imposed a regime of discipline that would universally be considered child abuse today. The instinct-dominated ancestors, however, would not be equipped to deal with their reasoning children. Once the spark of conscious abstract reason - self-awareness -  was lit, it would invariably and  fatally disadvantage its recipient long before he or she could gain the benefit technologically from the value of a logically developed knowledge-base. Humanoids would have been killed off long before any intelligence could evolve to be an advantage.

Monday, May 11, 2015

The real reason the state is interested in promoting same-sex marriage.

Recently, the push for same-sex marriage has become quite popular with the government of various jurisdictions. It is popularly justified on the grounds that denial of same-sex marriage is discrimination. This argument, however, fails miserably. It fails because the rules for government recognition of marriage are consistently applicable for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. During the oral argument in the recent Supreme Court case, interrogation of lawyers by Justices Scalia and Alito revealed that traditional marriage was normative and same-sex marriage absent even in societies that were very pro-homosexual.Additionally, there is an abundance of evidence that people have Fighting discriminatio sincere religious beliefs concerning homosexuality who practice nn is simply a smoke screen to hide the real reason for states to promote same-sex marriage.   

The real reason for states to promote same-sex marriage is rooted in the fundamental differences in the definitions between traditional and same-sex marriage. Traditional marriage is grounded ontologically in certain fundamental realities that are normative of human sexuality. Heterosexual relations are normative among humans, and the traditional institution of marriage was constructed to channel these powerful forces to function in a manner conducive to the formation of civilization. Traditional marriage fostered the formation of stable families as the basic unit of civilization and the front line for socializing children into behaving like civilized human beings and not like wild animals. 

  Same-sex marriage, however, is not rooted in any ontological ground. It only exists in the minds of those who identify theirs or others’ homosexual relationships as such. It is merely a virtual construct. In fact, much of the radical LGBTQ agenda can only be understood understood as redefining the fundamentals of personal and sexual identity as nothing more than merely virtual constructs. It is this idea that fuels the idea that a person can choose whatever gender they are regardless of the biological facts that pertain to gender. This idea of de-grounding the fundamentals that ground personal meaning has been around for quite a while. The significance of Roe v Wade is that it divorced the concept of person-hood from  any grounding in the sanctity of human life. It only mattered if a fetus was a legal person, and that was determined in terms of recognition by society and the state. Person-hood  is seen here as a mere construct of the state. 

Grounding person-hood, relationships, and sexual identity imposes limiting principles that are inherent in the nature of whatever grounds these things. This imposes limitations on what individuals and states can do with these constructs. The abortion rights and LGBTQ movements attacked these grounds and persuaded many to abandon these foundations because they were seen as too limiting. What they failed to see was that ontologically grounding personal and sexual identity also limited the role of the state. Once these were taken away, there were no longer any limiting principles to super-massive state intervention in matters that were very private and personal. Another problem in de-grounding personal and sexual identity is that this created a need for a virtual replacement. Personal and sexual identity cannot exist in society in a vacuum. Without any ground in the fundamentals of human nature or higher law, then an arbitrary ground had to be created and vested with sufficient force to hold these things together This need of a virtual ground has resulted in these groups looking to the state to step in to create and uphold these constructs.  If person-hood and sexuality are nothing more than constructs of the state, then there is nothing to limit the power or scope of the state in intervening in some very sensitive and private matters. This would give the state unlimited control over personal lives, and this is the real reason the state is interested in promoting same-sex marriage.