[asa] Why the kingdom of heaven belongs to children, why people reject evolution

From: Matthew) Yew Hock Tan <tanyewhock@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed May 30 2007 - 00:30:48 EDT

Why people reject evolution?
  Why the kingdom of heaven belongs to children?
  Why? either by design or evolution, we (and they) are hard-wired this way.
  According to evolutionary psychologists themselves - the materialist scientists - we are hard-wired to see design and purpose in everyday experience. This fact is already evident when we were babies and kids.
  Maybe - but then, maybe not - they can also show us that chimpanzees, orang utans and gorillas already possess pre-human capability to see design and purpose and the same neuro-circuitries in their brains, and the same DNA sequences, to strengthen their arguments that man descended from ape-like ancestors.
  So, babies and children are "designed" or have "evolved" to see God's hands in creation.
  Therefore... the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. Not I say. Jesus says.
  "Promiscuous Teleology" -- Is This Why So Many Reject Evolution?
    [Psychologists say] Our intuitive psychology also contributes to resistance to science. One significant bias is that children naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose. For instance, four year-olds insist that everything has a purpose, including lions ("to go in the zoo") and clouds ("for raining"), a propensity that Deborah Kelemen has dubbed "promiscuous teleology." Additionally, when asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and to prefer creationist explanations.
  Just as children's intuitions about the physical world make it difficult for them to accept that the Earth is a sphere, their psychological intuitions about agency and design make it difficult for them to accept the processes of evolution.
  ...The hard-wiring for design these psychologists identify as the problem may well be yet another sign of the imago Dei -- the image of God that distinguishes humanity from all other creatures (another claim directly rejected by the scientific establishment).
  This is precisely what Bloom and Weisberg, speaking for the scientific community, reject out of hand. These authors make that point clearly. Their argument also shows once again why "theistic evolution" is an incoherent proposal. The dominant model of evolution rejects any claim of design -- end of argument.

Matthew Tan Yew Hock
  "Crucify him!" They said of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez. But we support him.
  And support academic freedom.

You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
 in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 30 00:31:14 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 30 2007 - 00:31:16 EDT