Chapter 6. Breaking News. Your thoughts are just
brain farts. Ladies and gentlemen, hold on to
your neurons because we have another totally
scientific breakthrough. According to evolutionary
materialism, your thoughts, emotions, logic,
and deepest convictions are nothing more than
meaningless chemical accidents bouncing around
in your head, kind of like a soda can fizzing
and thinking it's making decisions. That's right.
Your love for your family, just some random neurons
firing for survival. Your moral convictions,
nothing but biological conditioning. Your belief
in science, also just a chemical illusion. Breaking
news, you are literally a self -aware bowl of
oatmeal. But wait, if our thoughts are just random
chemical reactions, how do we know which ones
are true? Evolution's thought experiment. Can
you trust a brain built by randomness? Let's
say we build two robots. Robot A, carefully designed,
programmed with logic, and follows consistent
rules to function correctly. Robot B, thrown
together by an explosion in a junkyard, and whatever
circuits happen to land in the right place. Well,
that's what it works with. Now, which robot do
you trust to give you reliable information? If
you're smart, you'd pick Robot A, the one with
intentional design. But according to evolution,
our minds are built like Robot B, just thrown
together by time, chance, and a whole lot of
dumb luck. This is called the evolutionary argument
against naturalism, Ian. It was proposed by philosopher
Alvin Plantinga, and it highlights the logical
problem of believing in reason if our reasoning
abilities evolved through irrational and unguided
survival mechanisms. But let's take it a step
further. But weight science relies on rationality.
Atheist scientists spend their entire careers
demanding logic, reason, and predictability in
science. And yet, they turn around and claim
that our ability to think rationally came from
mindless, unguided, survival -based instincts.
Let's break this contradiction down. They demand
logical arguments. But say logic itself is just
a biological adaptation for survival. They expect
rational conclusions, but say rationality evolved
through random, irrational processes. They trust
their own thinking, but say thinking is just
neurons firing with no foundation in truth. So,
if all thoughts are just accidental brain chemistry,
why should we trust atheist scientists' thoughts
any more than our own? Logical fallacy alert.
If evolution is true, then all thoughts, including
the belief in evolution itself, are just neuron
firings with no guarantee of truth. If consciousness
evolved for survival, truth doesn't matter. According
to evolutionary psychology, your brain didn't
evolve for truth. It evolved for survival. That
means it doesn't care about what is true, just
what helps you stay alive. Uh -oh, that means
your brain is built to believe lies if they help
you survive. Imagine a caveman. He looks at a
river and thinks, A. Water is necessary for hydration.
Logical conclusion. B. The water god will eat
me if I don't drink. Irrational, but keeps him
alive. Evolution doesn't care which thought is
true, only that the caveman drinks the water
and doesn't die. which means every single thought
you have, including belief in evolution, has
no guarantee of being true. Ladies and gentlemen,
this is called a self -refuting worldview. If
thoughts are just chemical reactions meant for
survival, then there's no reason to trust anything
you believe, including the belief that thoughts
are just chemical reactions. Science says, your
thoughts are meaningless, but trust ours. Alright
folks, let's break this down. If reason is just
a survival tool, how do scientists know their
theories are true? If our brains evolved from
irrational processes, why should we trust their
ability to be rational? If all thoughts are just
chemical reactions, what makes one idea better
than another? This would be like, your chemical
reactions are wrong and mine are right. The way
your soda confizzes is incorrect. it's absolute
nonsense yet atheists want you to trust their
thoughts even though their own world view says
thoughts have no ultimate meaning example why
this is impossible all right let's apply this
to real life imagine two scientists are arguing
over the best way to make a spaceship scientist
a uses logic physics and mathematics to design
a working spacecraft Scientist B shakes a box
of random Legos and expects them to assemble
into a spaceship by chance. According to atheist
materialism, Scientist B's method is exactly
how your brain came to exist. Does that sound
like a reliable system for truth? Exactly. If
randomness produced your thoughts, there is no
reason to trust your own thinking, let alone
someone else's. The Bible had it right all along.
While atheist scientists try to convince you
that you're just a clump of neurons pretending
to think, the Bible had the answer from the start.
Genesis 1 .27 God created man in his own image,
not a lucky monkey with brain chemicals. Proverbs
1 .7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
knowledge. Not random mutations are the foundation
of wisdom. Colossians 2 .3 In Christ are hidden
all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Knowledge,
wisdom, and reasoning come from God, not blind
chemical accidents. Meanwhile, science says,
bro, trust us, your brain is just fizzing chemicals,
but you can totally rely on our conclusions.
Yeah, no thanks. Final thoughts. Who's really
trusting science? Science depends on rational
thought. Evolution says rational thought is just
brain chemistry. If thoughts are just chemical
reactions, truth doesn't matter. But they still
want you to trust their thoughts. So tell me
again, who's really trusting science here? If
you trust truth, logic, and rationality, guess
what? You just admitted they must come from something
beyond material processes. But don't worry. The
atheists will be back tomorrow, using rational
arguments to prove that rationality is just an
illusion. while cashing their research grants.