Season 5 Podcast 113, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, “Comparison and Contrast.”

Season 5 Podcast 113, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, “Comparison and Contrast.” 

Evolutionists look at man and monkey and focus on the similarities; and from those similarities, they draw the conclusion that man descended from monkey, a hasty generalization as well as false analogy.  A hasty generalization occurs when you draw a universal conclusion from insufficient evidence.  A false analogy occurs when you carry the comparison between two things too far.  The truth lies in the differences which is sufficient to convince any objective person that man could not have descended from monkeys.  In addition to the spiritual and metaphysical differences, the laws of genetics and the principle of causality would never allow it.  

Comparison and contrast are a strong analytical tool that must follow the rules of classification and division; however, there are pitfalls.  False analogy can fool the person searching for truth, but it can also be used as a ploy by crafty people to deliberately fool the uninformed and gullible.  Comparison and contrast are a form of analogy and may lead to inferences of varying degrees of validity, but comparison does not release new information.  The conclusions remain inferential, never factual. Claiming that man descended from monkey because of genetic similarities is a case in point.  Monkeys cannot give birth to humans which is the only real proof that science can give. Anything else is inference, and the gap in intelligence between man and monkey, regardless of the gene similarity, is simply too great to ignore. It will always remain opinion because it can neither be verified nor falsified.  It suggests a start of investigation.  It should not be the end of the investigation or the final proof of the hypothetical conclusion.  Those who are driven by an agenda are often guilty of hasty generalization and false analogy. It takes less information to prove an existing prejudice. Beware of vested interest.

Comparison and contrast may be either literal or figurative.  

Poets prefer figurative comparisons; scientists prefer literal comparisons because they contain scientifically measurable data.  However, scientists, being human, are as vulnerable as the rest of us to the romanticism of natural poetry.  They don’t mind swimming in the sweet syrup of subjectivity, but they don’t want to appear subjective when wearing the robes of a scientist.

This is illustrated, unintentionally, of course, by the late Mr. Stephen Hawking. In his Book, ‘The Grand Design,” he wrote, “It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.” 

Note that Mr. Hawking is simply saying, man has the appearance of a biological machine.” There is a difference between saying man has the appearance of a robot or machine and asserting that ‘Man is a robot or machine.” The above is a non-committal statement. Mr. Hawking also said the universe has the appearance of intelligent design; however, Mr. Hawking denies the necessity of God.  In his last book, “Brief Answers to Big Questions,” he wrote, “I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science. …If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?" Mr. Hawking does not deny the existence of God. He claims that intelligent design is not necessary for creation. He added, “The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature." Mr. Hawking appears to simply ignore the impossible contradiction that law is necessary for everything but the creation of law.