RULES OF LOGIC, CONTROVERSIAL EXPLANATIONS, AND THE ORIGIN OF MAN

 By Marlon De Blasio, Op-ed contributor Tuesday, January 16, 2024, / Unsplash/Eugene Zhyvchik

Where did we come from? This question is the most interesting. The individual will choose the right answer. In addition, the impact is great, and therefore the discussion of the origin of man often becomes very emotional. I believe that the answer is there. Logic helps find the truth and informs the discussion.

The rule of non-contradiction in its logic is undeniable. When two explanations for a problem are incompatible with one another, neither can be true; however, both may be false.

See the perspective that God helped human evolution or that humans evolved from non-human ancestors through a very naturalistic process. This view contradicts the idea that God made man divinely, without any evolutionary process producing humans from non-human ancestors. Therefore, logic says that there could have been such an evolutionary element at the dawn of man, according to the law of non-contradiction.

"The LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living creature" (Genesis 2:7). Naturalists read this completely as a legend. While other theologians oppose the evolutionary interpretation, some theologians support it. Not all of these perspectives are true. I don't think they're wrong. Allow me to explain why.

Gradualism is the basis of theistic and naturalistic theories of evolution. That is, species that were not influenced by humans evolved gradually, with little change, to become what we see today. Some people believe that God sometimes intervenes in the process. They believe this is the result of natural selection, chance, and random mutations that occurred over millions of years. We have to look at the creative process that shows the transformation of apes into male and female humans, whether this process is true with or without God. Since science does not rely on artistic interpretations of events taking place, drawings and sketches are not evidence in favor of the theory of evolution.

The images of animals crawling, walking, and eventually transforming into Homo erectus (upright man) and eventually Homo sapiens (modern man and woman) are true if they are true. In addition, it is important to understand that the theorists who developed the idea of Darwinism used the names Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, not the actual male and female species. This species is proposed by taking the right female partner in each phase.

Male and female apes cannot mate with male and female intermediate apes or humans and fertilize their offspring, as each pair needs a specific reproductive system. Science reveals that it is impossible for apes and humans, or some apes and some humans, to mate and fertilize eggs.

The zygote contains highly specialized, intricate, and profound genetic information after a human male sperm fertilizes a human female egg. Immutable information is used to determine physical characteristics, such as hair and eye color, and gender. It is possible to change the process through medical procedures, but this requires deliberate forethought rather than random events.

Apes also mate and produce using their own genetic data, having different physical and hairy characteristics from humans. What will be the replay of the scientific process that turned apes into humans if we rewind the film of world history? The film will show that male apes reproduce with female apes and male humans reproduce with female humans scientifically. All of them require art, imagination, and homological sketches.

The view of evolutionary elements does not seem to distinguish between the true and the desirable. Although science has revealed that male and female apes are not programmed or were once programmed to be sexually active with male and female humans, the idea that humans descended from apes continues to exist. However, some observations on micro-changes in the human species are recorded and pretentiously extrapolated.

If God created humans without the gradual evolutionary elements that turned apes into humans, then we would anticipate that contemporary science would make special observations and confessions. We must pay attention to species that can only reproduce within their own kind, especially. The human male and female reproductive systems are very complex, and sperm cannot fertilize an egg without their different characteristics. In addition, science has found that human male and female hormones are more sexually attractive to each other than animals. Despite this, the sexual drive towards humans is absent in apes.

Therefore, the scientist saw and proved that the DNA of humans and animals is programmed to reproduce in its own way. Therefore, the gradual process cannot be resisted by science because it makes some changes in apes, intermediate apes, or humans to evolve with different reproductive systems at each stage and ultimately produce humans. Similarly, the belief that God intervened in the process of creating the necessary scientific requirements is unacceptable. Despite the many DNA similarities found between animals and humans, there is no scientific mechanism that supports the hypothesis that apes and humans serve as intermediaries to mate and eventually produce humans.

Again, science does not agree with the idea that natural selection exceptionally combines human descent from non-human descendants or that God presided over human history. As a result, what reasons prompted so many to still believe in him? At the University of Toronto, a famous American scientist spoke about the theory of evolution some time ago. After that, I asked him personally if he considered the theory of evolution to be a cultural story or a science. "In what I write to you, before God, I do not lie," he replied calmly. "This is more of a cultural thing."

The law of non-contradiction involves the above two explanations. Observation and rationality show that scientific explanations that claim that evolutionary elements turned apes into humans are unacceptable. Therefore, from these two explanations, it makes sense to conclude that intelligent entities program humans to produce their own products without relying on the descendants of apes. I consider that entity to be God.

Different explanations are still needed to reach this conclusion. If a hypothesis challenges the idea that "God created man," logic and science will need other explanations than the evolutionary gradualism that produced male and female humans from apes.

Christian author and cultural defender Marlon De Blasio. He spent time in Toronto with his family. Join him on @MarlonDeBlasio Twitter.

News Sources : https://www.christianpost.com/voices/human-origins-competing-explanations-and-the-rule-of-logic.html