Sir Frederick Hoyle said that for one to swallow Darwinism, one must need a certain amount of mental illness:
“So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers [in Darwinism] became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens.” – Mathematics of Evolution, (1987) University College Cardiff Press (or Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.3-4). – my emphasis
Over the last 30 years or so I’ve had many occaisions to debate with evolutionists. In person and on many various Internet forums and blogs.
If there is one thing that occurs over and over again it the patent absence of keen logic amongst evolutions – theistic or atheistic. Thus over the past few years I’ve been compiling data and observing a glaring fact: Darwinists/atheists are unable to reason even the simplest forms of logical dialogue without getting bogged down in endless circles of typical logical fallacies.
Specifically, affirming the consequent, begging the question and the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
Over the past year I’ve discovered that I’m not alone in these observations. And then just a few days ago I came upon this quote from astrophysicist Sir Frederick Hoyle.
Hoyle’s comment was made many years ago but is more pertinent now than ever with the current controversy over Intelligent Design theory raging both in academia, in the courts and public debate forums.
I remember one such debate in which my atheist/Darwinist opponent claimed that there are no absolutes. I asked him whether he thought 2+2 (in any conceivable universe) always = 4 or not and whether that was an absolute or not.
He claimed it was not an absolute.
He was a very bright young software developer & analyst. So his very livelihood depended on the absolute truths of math. Yet he would not change his mind for anything I could say. His whole world view depended on denial of absolutes.
So we can see why a reversal of opinion on his part would have meant a powerful shock to his whole mental life and reason for living – a shock which in religious terms would be called “conversion”.
I’ve debated with many like him. The only ones who make the admission that indeed there are absolutes end up in the theist camp.
The very existence of logical absolutes is unaccountable under atheism. That’s why they almost invariably deny them (all while using them as such in their own argumentations – go figure).
So we see that indeed, atheist/Darwinist thinking cripples the mind and immunizes it against logic and common sense.
And that is the logical consequence of denial of reality. Psychiatric wards are full of people who started out denying realities.
We witness this type of denial every day in the ID vs Evo debate. Darwinists invariably ascribe to nature the powers of novel creation through random mutations + natural selection. Mutations don’t usually create anything but problems or diseases (or nothing) so natural selection is assigned the role of creative agency.
Then the ability to empirically detect design is rejected. But only in biology of course! So who says biology can’t be included? Darwinists do. Why? Because they have some logical empirical method of demonstrating that design cannot be detected within biological structures? Not at all. No such method or even logical reason exists.
So upon what basis do they auto-exclude ID detection from biological structures? It is because to admit that design is detectable in nature as well as everywhere else is to admit the existence of the Designer once one determines that any natural system at all required an intelligence!
To allow into one’s mind the fact that designed structures are detectable based on probabilistic methods and abductive reasoning applied to the incredible complex, coordinated concurrent information processing systems we now know are everywhere in living cells implies that Darwinism may not in fact be true.
But it MUST be true in their world view.
Richard Lewontin – Harvard geneticist put as follows:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
“Billions and Billions of Demons.” Review of
“The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” by Carl Sagan. The New York Times Review of Books, January 9, 1997, pp.28-32,
p.31. Emphasis original)
– my bold
So therein lies the root of denial that leads Darwinists to that form of mental illness mentioned by Hoyle. Hoyle was merely looking at the facts honestly.
In his own words,
“if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. “
Notice the bolded text. This is a major factor in real life today for scientists. Just look what they did to Dr. Richard Sternberg. See Here.
That fear factor plays an important role in the denial of reality associated with atheism and Darwinism.
A whole slew of other examples of the “wrath of the scientific community” have arisen in this single area over the past 20 years or so.
The Darwinian scientific elite claim to have a monopoly on truth. What arrogance motivates them in this!
Darwinism/atheism require a denial of reality to adhere to. This denial leads to relativistic thinking. And this kind of thinking, being counter logical, leads to mental illness. The inability to reason correctly.
I therefore close with this quote from Michel de Montaigne:
I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly.