Photo Credit:

Here’s a drinking game I haven’t thought about before:

Take a drink every time these two gentlemen hit the point where a divine designer would be the only intellectually satisfying conclusion from their discussion—but they quickly veer away from it.

Advertisement

Richard Dawkins, especially, would rather believe in a magical, unproven evolution, where our own human intelligence is proven to be useless in evolutionary terms, because Evolution has never picked it again for survival anywhere in the planet’s history—than believe in the supremacy of humans, endowed by their Creator.

As always, assign a designated driver first, if you’re playing in a group.


Advertisement

7 COMMENTS

  1. "..our own human intelligence is proven to be useless in evolutionary terms, because Evolution has never picked it again for survival anywhere in the planet’s history…"

    Um, what? That's so confused that I don't even know how to begin to respond. Can the author provide examples of human intelligence developing in another species and not being selected? Is he implying that our intelligence doesn't aid in our own survival as a species? Has he ever taken a class on what evolution actually entails?

  2. Yeah, Joe, a breathtakingly shallow and ill-informed musing on the topic, by a guy who seems to specialize in having fun. Although I am appreciative for the link, as I had not seen it and found it rather entertaining. And Dawkins got the better of it, I thought. He even managed, in just a few minutes, to provide the suggestion of the rudiments of something like a human intelligence in bats. But of course, many of the constituents of human intelligence have arisen in other species, (memory, pattern recognition, tool use, etc.) and generally have proven useful for survival – spectacularly so in the case of humans.

  3. I like how they don't pretend to know anything and their conversation sounds a bit like one I might have with a friend. Why can't we just admit that the systems of the universe (sub-atomic, atomic, cellular, as well as the ways they are arranged, which require the laws of physics) are so adaptable that evolution may have been part of the plan from the beginning. Even if you're not a Deistic evolutionists (Adam was formed from the dust of the earth afterall), you surely would admit that man shares many similarities in design with animals that were created before him. This is a sort of evolution in design, where the designer implements some of the better features of previous creations in the newer models. At the very least, we can look at all the systems that make up the universe and all the life within it and we have to admit that this system is so adaptable and amazing in its ability to interact with other elements within the system. I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me how animal instincts are passed on through DNA…every living thing seems to have pre-written code in them which allows them to survive. As amazing as it may be for snake to develop syringe-like teeth, it's almost more amazing that, out of the egg, that snake has the instincts to use them. Evolution has yet to explain how organisms develop instincts…the cuddle-fish has no parents to teach them, yet they're able to use some rather sophisticated survival techniques right out of the egg. Don't ask me why it's important to say there is no God…I just don't know why people who think they're so smart are able to look at the Big-Bang theory as if that's the beginning of the story…nothing begets nothing, so starting with a mass of matter is not the start.

  4. Yori Yanover is, sadly to say, blatantly unqualified to comment on the topic.

    The author conflates his own lack of understanding as being the fault of the (laboratory observed, globally-accepted by the credible scientific community) theory of evolution. I suspect the author is probably the kind of person who would say "it's just a theory after all!"

Loading Facebook Comments ...