If all living species developed over a similar evolutionary timeframe, then why are humans unique? Did the emotion of love develop before the emotion of hate, or did all of the human emotions develop simultaneously? How can a brain acquire new characteristics - like emotions, thinking, and reasoning -- if scientifically provable harmful DNA mutations are causing brain degeneration with time (acquiring new characteristics should not be confused with improved brain functioning that may result from environmental influences)!
As previously mentioned, an evolutionist would say that it's just a matter of time when the dog will acquire the missing link in its brain. Really! If so, then we are not just talking about dogs; we are also talking about insects. Will insects become humanlike in time? I don't think so, but this is what you are being told by scientists who believe in evolution of the brain without the influence of God.
My contention is that the brain is nothing more than a biological computer with programming that allows it to have instincts and the ability to learn and adapt. Except for instincts and the existence of life itself, we can fabricate a computer today that learns and adapts, but instinct and biological life remain a mystery. You can be sure of one thing though, and that is that a computer will not have the desire or ability to have an original thought and will not have feelings and humanlike emotions. I concede that a computer can have new thoughts based upon a learned database, but not an original thought. And, what do I mean by an original thought? How about Albert Einstein's theory of relativity? If you think that the theory of relativity could have been derived from computer programming and learning, then the programming and learning would need to include mental imagery, spatial reasoning, image manipulation, and an active imagination. It would need to compile relationships between totally different ideas and derive a new and cogent understanding. And, what would inspire it to have an original thought in the first place? If you believe that this is possible, then you are placing a faith in science that rivals the faith that some people have in their religion.
Then what about reasoned logic? Although one could argue that a computer symbolizes the logic process, it cannot indulge in reasoned logic. If a computer were to be used as a judge in criminal trials, it would most likely look up the law regarding a penalty for a crime and impose the penalty without regard for circumstantial and extenuating circumstances. Since circumstantial and extenuating circumstances require an understanding of motivation, compassion, and other human attributes, the computer would be inadequate for this purpose. My form of reasoned logic is to compile a reasonable number of related facts from which I can form a conclusion. Although my conclusions may be wrong, they are - to the extent possible -- based upon a somewhat unbiased evaluation of both sides of an issue. While some issues can be represented scientifically, mathematically, and historically, many are not. In fact most significant issues - like the theory of macroevolution -- are clouded by misrepresentations and biases on both sides. They are connected to human feelings and beliefs that cannot be deciphered by a computer. Although reasoned logic is an inexact human process it is a human attribute that is not suited to computers. Is it a process derived from a soul?
Scientists are currently examining animal and human brains to determine what makes them tick. They see living cross sectional color renditions of human brain activity, and correlate this activity with emotions and bodily functions. They dissect deceased brains in an attempt to ascertain why some brains behave differently than others. They run tests to evaluate how brains respond to various stimuli. It is almost like they are trying to examine a computer microchip to determine the nature of the program that it is running. While we may be learning more about how a biological computer works, we are probably not ever going to understand the emotional function. While we know empirically that the emotion aspect is there, I don't think we will ever find it.
Probably the most telling of scientific experiments has been to measure weight differences before and after human death. In one instance six patients in a nursing home were wheeled onto a scale just before their death. The scale measured to within one gram, and the results were startling. In each case the weight before death and after death was reduced by an average of 29 grams (454 grams equals one pound). Similar tests have been conducted worldwide with similar results. If you are a scientist, you would have to conclude that something is leaving the body at the time of death. Could this be the soul? Could this be the undetectable invisible ingredient that creates human emotions? To me this test -- although rather bizarre -- is somewhat disappointing since I don't envision the soul as being comprised of matter that has weight. My reasoning is that the soul should not be bound by physical constraints.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar