The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology

If you don't like discussing free will, then just accept it. Accept it by the logic about it in common language, incomplete as though it may be.I accuse:1. that evolutionists have been destroying knowledge about decision2. that this destruction has led to much human suffering3. that they have put up a wall of intellectual dishonesty to escape dealing with their responsibility for causing human sufferingThe support for decision in science is weak at best, and denial at worst. That this would lead common knowledge about decision to be destroyed, depends mostly on how big the influence of science is on common knowledge. This influence is big IMO.That this would lead to human suffering, depends on how fundamental knowledge about decision is in people's lives. It is very fundamental IMO.The argument for part 3 is in the replies by evolutionists to this post.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are not thinking Contracycle. In any case I can now safely conclude that actually you don't know the basic things about decision.Your description of a coinflip realizing a chance that is in the past is simply wrong. At the start of the coinflip there is a chance about a futurestate. But as the coinflip progresses the initial state passes into the past, where it is a certainty, not a chance. There are no chances in the past.Now try and find causes that are in the future, which effect the present.It is of course no coincedence that you are a materialist, and that you don't understand that decisions pertain to future states. That is because materialists usually only describe in terms of past relating to present, and not future relating to present.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But you don't accept free will, in the way it is accepted in common language, you accept it in the way it is consistent with materialism.Where is the point where it can go one way or another in your construct? It must be the "internal urge". That is rather vague.Again I appeal to your common sense, and ask you to simply start with the point where it can go one way or another in your construct of free will.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I reread my postings in the thread. Very good most of it, some of it not so good.Particularly good is the argument that evopsych people will end up in a delusion of innocense by misinterpreting their own sinful free-will as selfish genemechanisms, which will leave their hatereds to grow unchecked, so that they will be putting a veneer of altruism, over their rising tide of hatered.And while most of my argument is the same, there have been some new developments, namely that I get more backup now for my arguments from science.For example Edwina Taborsky arguing that natural selection is "weak anticipation". For as far as I understand the concept of weak anticipation, that is the same as saying that natural selection is not real, it is only in the head.That's what I've been saying for a long time, that natural selection is not real.So evolutionists, this is not over yet, the chances are that you'll lose all of it:- natural selection theory will be thrown out- creationism becomes the most fundamental hard-science discipline in all of science- the scientific method becomes to explicitly acknowledge the spiritual domain is realAnd that should just be the easy part for you all to accept, the hard part being questions of guilt and responsibility for destroying, and otherwise oppressing people's common knowledge about freedom, and things like that.I made a thread about Edwina Taborsky's paper, I suggest you post in it. The paper is a little bit wordy, however basicly these are simple fundamental concepts we are dealing with. To acknowledge freedom tends to throw out natural selection. The more it is acknowledged the more natural selection is pushed aside. That trend is clearly visible, as als with a Darwinist like Steven Kaufmann.Both Kaufmann, and Taborsky don't seem to want to be creationists, however they do want to acknowledge freedom is real. Try as they might to avoid creationism, Kaufmann talking about finding god in nature does not seem to be very consistent with atheism, eventhough he didn't mean it (but then again he did mean it). And Taborsky commenting repeatedly that she is not fashioning an intelligent design theory seems kind of desperate.So in general that is state of the debate now, scientists coming to acknowledge freedom is real, and thereby naturally ending up with creationist ideas, which they then seek to avoid.

The scientist that threw out natural selection, replaced it with evolution as an "informed and reasoned" process. So that's kind of looking like intelligent design theory.Anyway, as you know creation is a free act, and since some professor found a way how to handle freedom mathematically, hyperincursive math, since then natural selection is out, and creation is in.Here is how this works, decisions are made in the universe at large (proven), and through these decisions things come to be.That is the fundamental mindset of the new scientist. Which happens to be the mindset of most believers in God, who'se view of the universe as it turns out was fundamentally more accurate then that of most all 20th century scientists.