It’s easy to spot a bad argument. The attacks start getting personal. The most recent example is with Dr. Craig Stanford, professor of anthropology and biological sciences at the University of Southern California.
He’s a “well-known evolutionary professor [who] stated in a recent interview that those who do not accept evolution are ‘fundamentally irrational’ with ‘a kind of slightly crazy mindset,’ and claimed that a Christian apologist’s evolution-challenging film is ‘a great example’ of ‘Biblical porn.’”
This is a perfect example of how to avoid the fundamental flaws in your own system. Ridicule the people who are questioning the fundamental assumptions of that position.
“Biblical porn”? Come on now. How is challenging the operating assumptions of a particular worldview akin to pornography? Actually, such an attack is a sign that the guy had been punked by someone who saw through the fundamental flaws of his belief system, and he’s not used to be challenged. He’s a professor with a PhD.
“Stanford went on to ridicule people who do not accept Darwinian evolution. ‘If you’re not going to accept evolution,’ he said, ‘I guess that’s your civil right, but that means you’re working on a fundamentally irrational and a kind of slightly crazy mindset.’”
Let’s talk about “irrational” and “crazy.” Evolutionists believe that matter came into existence out of nothing. Let’s assume that this is true, although irrational and crazy based on what we know of physics. The next step is for biological life to emerge out of inanimate matter, even though we know that this is a biological impossibility. That would be like taking the elements of the Periodic Table, putting them in a cement mixer, spinning it around for millions, maybe billions of years, and expecting you and me to emerge.
In addition to the stuff needed to make this happen, information is also needed to direct the organization of the matter. It’s not an encyclopedia of information that’s needed, it’s very specific information that’s needed.
The directions that come with bicycle parts are quite simple. If these directions are not followed exactly, you will have wheels, handle bars, a seat, chain, wheels, and numerous bolts and washers (things that must be accounted for and designed), but you will not have a functioning bike.
Evolutionists can’t account for the stuff necessary to make the cosmos, the information necessary to direct the organization of the stuff, and the so-called intangibles like love, compassion, empathy, and morality.
How does the structure of DNA (unaccounted for by evolutionists) justify the claim that killing other evolved entities of our own species is a moral evil? Dr. Stanford might have a theory on how to account for morality, but he can’t offer any empirical evidence, and even if he could, there is nothing about the stuff of the cosmos to judge between right and wrong in terms of evolutionary origins.
If Dr. Stanford wants to talk about “irrational” and “crazy,” he might want to take a look at his own views.