He grants a treasure of common sense to the honest. He is a shield to those who walk with integrity.- Proverbs 2:7
2 Corinthians 10:3-7
3 We are human, but we don’t wage war as humans do.
4 We use God’s mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments.
5 We destroy every proud obstacle that keeps people from knowing God. We capture their rebellious thoughts and teach them to obey Christ.
7 Look at the obvious facts.
“Proponents of education technology have made remarkable promises over the past two decades: that by 2019, half of all secondary school courses would be online; videos and practice problems can let students learn mathematics at their own pace; in 50 years only 10 mega-institutions of higher education would be left; or that typical students left alone with internet-connected computers can learn anything without the help of schools or teachers.” (Justin Reich, NewScientist.com).
“Then in 2020, people around the world were forced to turn to online learning as the coronavirus pandemic shut down schools serving more than 1 billion students. It was education technology’s big moment, but for many students and families, remote learning has been a disappointment. When the world needs it most, why has education technology seemed so lackluster?” (Justin Reich, NewScientist.com).
There are two major challenges. Most students depend upon a human connection to maintain their motivation and focus. There is something about a person to person connection that enhances and deepens the learning experience. When they are alone with a computer, the human connection is missing.
The other challenge is the diversity of the curricula. The answers to mathematical problems can be instantaneously evaluated as either right or wrong. But computers are not yet capable of assessing more subjective matters.
“Computers cannot reliably evaluate how humans reason from evidence, and reasoning from evidence is the very core of schooling” (Justin Reich, NewScientist.com).
Do humans reason from evidence? The response to this seemingly innocent and straightforward question is a bit ambivalent. The answer is yes, no, sometimes.
Human reason is not entirely objective. Some areas of knowledge are quite objective and straightforward. For example, in mathematics, 2 + 2 = 4 is pretty certain. But other areas of understanding are often quite subjective. They are colored by bias, presuppositions, education, personal ambition, mental blocks, and what the Scriptures often refers to as blindness.
REFLECT & PRAY
2 Corinthians 4:3-4
3 If the Good News we preach is hidden behind a veil, it is hidden only from people who are perishing.
4 Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.
Father thank You for giving me a mind with which to reason. Thank You for revealing Your Truth to me so I was able to come to know who You are, believing in You, and have forgiveness and everlasting life through the Lord Jesus Christ.
People typically desire to support beliefs they already hold. They search for evidence that substantiate their view. Often people are not inclined to be persuaded by objective evidence. Frequently, they are open-minded at all. People tend to cherry pick information which supports their pre-determined belief system and reject anything else out of hand.
Their preconceived notions are frequently based on “facts” that are often unproven opinions which are simply taken by faith by those who are in agreement with them.
Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, stated that if the “tape of life” were to be rerun, “the chance becomes vanishingly small that anything like human intelligence” would occur (Gould, 1990). What Gould is saying is that evolution, which resulted in intelligent, sentient human beings, is highly unlikely to have occurred.
Scientific researchers at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute have suggested that Humanity is alone in the universe. Our existence having been created by one big fluke.
The unlikeliness of the series of “evolutionary transitions” that led to our existence is “exceptionally rare.” In fact, the team calculated that there is anywhere between a 53% and a 99.6% chance that we are alone. The worst-case scenario is that there is only a .04% likelihood for evolution to occurred. Intelligent life is ‘exceptionally rare.’ Scientists are now saying that it is highly unlikely that life exists on other planets. (Tom Bull, www.dailystar.co.uk, December 2020).
Evolutionary transitions are the changes that need to occur between life forms during their suggested evolution. We have all seen the pictures in K-12 scientific textbooks. If this theoretical model were true, we should have millions, if not billions of transitional life forms in the fossil record which show the gradual evolutionary transformation over time. They are, however, missing. We are not talking about one or two missing links. Basically most all of them are missing.
Francis Crick, with James Watson, identified the double helix structure of the DNA molecule. He conjectures that “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” (Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981).
Evolutionary theory is one alternative to faith in the Father God as the intelligent designer and creator for all things. George Wald, wrote “I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution” (George Wald, “Origin, Life and Evolution,” Scientific American (1978)).
What is the formula for evolution?
Time + Chance = Man
Alternative Formula for Evolution:
Nothing + Nobody = Everything
How do evolutionists believe life and ultimately man came into existence? There was no plan, no design, no research, no intelligence behind it. It just happened by accident, by chance over long periods of time. According to common evolutionary theory it took approximately 4.5 billion years for intelligent life on Earth to evolve.
What we believe did happen, is controlled by what we believe could happen.
Ken Ham writes: All scientists have the same facts, they have the same worlds, the same fossils, the same living creatures, the same universe. If the “facts” are the same, then how can the explanations be so different?
World Views, presuppositions, biases!
Evolutionary scientists begin only with the present and must reason back to reconstruct the past. The question for many becomes – How do we explain today’s world from what we see and observe without the intervention or existence of God?
“Humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith.”
“We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity” (Humanist Manifesto II).
What evidence exists that evolution actually occurred? The simple fact that people exist. Intelligent, sentient people themselves are the evidence.
Do humans reason from evidence?
Frequently the answer is no. Rather, conclusions are biased or emotional. People often simply ignore, discard or play down data that does not support their conclusion. Confirmation bias focuses exclusively on data that supports the desired conclusion. All that was needed was enough time. Time + chance would inevitably produce intelligent life.
In fact this is just simply not the case. 21st-century computational capabilities have led the Oxford researchers and Stephen Jay Gould closer to realizing that such a conclusion regarding the existence of intelligent life is flawed, and mathematically impossible. This should drive people to the Father’s truth.
Because of hardened hearts and the pull/power of confirmation bias, it does not.