How many accidents does it take to make a mind?

Question

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’

C.S.Lewis (1898–1963), The Business of Heaven,

p.s. Lewis was a professor at Cambridge and was regarded by many of his peers as being one of the top minds of the 20th century

Dear October,

It is easy to say some one is wrong, but that shows us nothing. Why is he wrong? Each of his steps is a logical result of the previous step. Please tell me where his logic breaks down. You are like so many evolutionists, claiming that people of faith are idiots, but when faced with some one of high intellect who is also a person of faith, all you can say is "He is wrong" even idiots can come up with a better answer than that>

To sail cat,

OK how did the Galaxy Milky way come to be in its present state. Either by accident or design. So I will take Lewis' argument one step back. Our galaxy formed by accident. the conclusion that Lewis arrives at is the same.

To Jim L

Falsifable? The first requirement is repeatability. Please indicate how one shows that evolution is repeatable.

I will change one word in your second Paragraph.

Creation is a very powerful theoretical framework that has never been falsified, is consistent with a huge body of evidence, and has been used successfully to make non-obvious predictions that turned out to be true. By this standard, it is one of the most solid theories of science, on par with Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Paragraphs 3-4 Assumptions I see at least 8 assumptions that you have made without any backing. in fact almost every sentence introduced a new assumption. I would not be surprised that if you reread those paragraphs, you will not even see those assumptions. Now you may say that you did not take enough time to elaborate. However they will still be just assumptions.

Jim L.

Your words.

Evolution actually occurs with an exponential trend. It took perhaps one billion years between the time of the first very primitive self-replicating molecules (precursors to RNA & DNA) and the existence of primitive single-cell organisms.

It is interesting that what you do not dwell on is the formation and the utterly amazing complexity of that first single cell. Given that by your calculations the universe is 10^11 years old what is the probability that all the components of a cell could spring into existance at one time. I think you will find that the probability is 1 in 10^40. Sorry, but your faith must be stronger than any Creationist.

Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of the last generation. When he thoroughly examined the complexity of the cell especially DNA he became a creationist.

Likewise Francis Collins, The Chairman of the Human Genome Project. He too is a creationist

to Kylie

Sorry but I have not done extensive research on that topic. I cannot comment

to Kylie

Sorry but I have not done extensive research on that topic. I cannot comment

To Jim L

Your words.

You misread what I said about the cell. It is quite likely that evolution was progressing for as much as 1 billion years before the first primitive cell occurred.

A Billion years and yet repeatable? Give me something logical.

Your words "Quite likely". Do I see another HUGE set of assumptions coming? Oh yes I do. All unfalsifable.

Please give me anything like this type of assumptions In Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Yet you have the utter gaul to try to say that evolution is as strong as Einstein's works. You have been Brainwashed.

Gy the way since it seem yhat you have been brainwashed by Talk Origins, Maybe you should study their article about debating with a Creationist that is even a bit up on the subject. They will tell you that you will lose. Why? Because the creationist will use underhanded methods like I have to get our point across.

To Jim L

Please Indicate why the Monarch Butterfly leaves its over wintering location in Mexico and starts its migration to all the rest of North America. It mates and dies. The second then the third, fourth and fifth generation continue to feed in NA. Then a strange thing starts to happen. In the sixth generation, the butterflies, that have a brain the size of a pinhead, migrate back to the over wintering location. Some fly over 2000 miles to get to a place that no Monarch butterfly has ever seen in six generations. Many times they return to the very tree that their ancestors left. How and why does this happen

Answer 1

Even great minds can fall for logical fallacies, especially if they have a motive to accept conclusion of the fallacy.

People who don't like the idea that we weren't created specially by an all-powerful being don't like to hear any other explanation. Evolution is a very powerful theoretical framework that has never been falsified, is consistent with a huge body of evidence, and has been used successfully to make non-obvious predictions that turned out to be true. By this standard, it is one of the most solid theories of science, on par with Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

So what is the logical fallacy here? Well, creationists like to think that Evolution claims that chance is the main component of Evolution. That is of course bunk. Chance does play a minor role, but the main component of Evolution is natural selection. Natural selection simply states that detrimental changes tend to not be passed on to the next generation, but beneficial changes are passed on to the next generation. This affect carried out over many generations is what causes whole new species to evolve to better fill the environmental niches. This process has been going on on Earth for at least three billion years, possibly four billion. That time is so far beyond most people's comprehension that it is not surprising that people fail to understand how powerful a force natural selection can be.

The other thing people fail to take into account is that the advance of Evolution actually occurs with an exponential trend. It took perhaps one billion years between the time of the first very primitive self-replicating molecules (precursors to RNA & DNA) and the existence of primitive single-cell organisms. It's taken only about 100 thousand years between the different recent species leading up to homo sapiens. Now the evolution of information is mostly occurring outside of the genome, in information we store in our brains, books, and computers.
--- edit ---
Evolution is has never been falsified, even though it is falsifiable. I.D. is not falsifiable.
Evolution is indeed repeatable, and has been observed multiple times in our lifetimes, including even the creation of new species. Furthermore, there is very strong (and multiple independent forms of) evidence showing that evolution has occurred many times in the past.
Please name the predictions that I.D. has made that have been verified. I am not aware of a single one that does not have an alternate, simpler explanation that does not require the existence of a intelligent designer.
You misread what I said about the cell. It is quite likely that evolution was progressing for as much as 1 billion years before the first primitive cell occurred. Precursors to RNA and DNA could have started with naked organic molecules. At some point they could have started to code proteins that formed a thin layer of protection -- the beginnings of a cell wall. This process would have been very slow, with probably many cases of successful mutations being lost anyway due to the harsh environment, but 1 billion years is such a huge span of time that it is not nearly as inconceivable as you want to believe it is.

Answer 2

Currently, quantum mechanics are replacing
both religious and evolution-based theories
on how creation forms. I'm afraid accicdental
views are as passe as the Higgs Bosom
particle.

Basically, creation forms when energy bits
explode and interface with invisible forces
known as Laws Of Physics.
Time and space are merely by-products of
this reaction. And, the over-all design for the
universe comes from the Atomic Chart, as
opposed to being some sort of an accident.

Under quantum theory, when energy collapses.
it discards time and space, but holds onto
it's characteristics that format with it's given
frequencies.

Not only does this make space travel a real
possibility, but it explains how scientists were
able to extract mass from a black hole, recently.
Not only did the matter reconstruct itself, but
it returned to it's original form.

Scientists are very busy today experimenting
with "energy smashers" to watch how "quarks"
react when they collide.

Where all this is going is anybody's guess.

Answer 3

Accidents? The laws of physics are the same in all the Universe. The Milky Way and the stars inside are formed in the same way of our big sister Andromeda. The principal producers of life materials are the supernovas and you can find them in all the Universe.
Are we really different or especial? I don't think so.

Answer 4

Just go with the flow and try and enjoy the ride

Answer 5

...And he was wrong.