Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Theory of evolution » Language: The origin of language

Language: The origin of language

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Language: The origin of language Empty Language: The origin of language on Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:38 pm


How could consciousness, logic and language evolve from matter?

Flowering plants of the genus Musa will always only generate Bananas.  Citrus species will always only produce citrus fruits like Orange, lemon etc.
Only an intelligent mind, capable of logical reasoning, is an adequate cause to create other minds able to reason. If we as humans possess the capability to intellectually understand and to know, then the cause must have the same or better capabilities of the same sort.
Arguing that matter can produce a mind, consciousness, intelligence, and the capability of logical reasoning is special pleading.

Logic exists in the realm of the mind. It is not made of physical stuff. It is transcendental, universal, and invariant, and based on axiomatic rules. Rational discourse and valid thoughts succeed only when logic is applied. Logic is the basis of thought and interrelated with conscience. How could non-reason produce reason? Non-logic produce logic? How can we know that the law of contradiction is true? that a lie cannot be true?  Math and abstract numbers which do not stand in a cause-effect relation exist in the realm of the immaterial. How can the mind develop knowledge about these things? How could it evolve and create the ability to learning about numbers and calculus? How could it even begin to understand that one stone could be mathematically added up to a second one, resulting in two stones? For us, this is obvious and easy. But for an ignorant, recently emerging mind without experience and knowledge, only self-awareness?  

In order for our reasoning process to be trustworthy and valid, it would have to be the result of a rational creation process of the creator of man.  If apples cannot produce bananas, how could unanimated matter produce logic and that reason discover physical truths which involve complex math and metaphysical truths which are essentially non-materialistic? Naturalism is like someone sitting on a branch of a tree and saw it off. Atheism is self-defeating. Atheists argue about being right based on a thinking process, which has no foundation or validness to be trustworthy if its origin is not rational.

Only the believer in a rational God, which is the ultimate source of rationality and intelligence, and created humans in his likeliness, equipped with the same ability of reason, logic, sound thinking process and able to reach metaphysical truths can trust his mind, because he believes to be the result of a higher mind, which has all these faculties in a perfect, superior manner.

When did supposedly the mind start to recognize its self-existence? When did matter become conscient, and starting to think? Our sensory organs receive information and transmit them to the brain, where it is somehow perceived by the mind. How could the mind have processed its surrounding and make sense of it without the physical mechanisms in place? How is physical sensory information transformed in perception of the mind and understanding?  How could a conscient mind transition to a thinking process without the existence of language? Further, in order for communication between two individuals to begin to exist, there had to be a common assignment of meaning and common understanding of words and their meaning. How could that agreement be formed and be done without a pre-existing language to come to that common agreement? Agreements require pre-existing language based on pre-existing agreement of meaning of words. How language could have gotten " off the hook" by natural evolutionary means is hard to fathom. Actually, I think we can reasonably say, it's not possible.   Einstein describes this as an unbridgeable Gulf, that cannot be crossed. Great minds like Planck did hold that the mind precedes matter. Evidence points to that scenario.

As Dembski wrote: Provided the proposition, together with its competitors, form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. As Sherlock Holmes famous dictum says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. This is the ideal case, in which eliminative inductions, in fact, become deductions. The problem is that in practice we don't have a neat ordering of competitors that can then all be knocked down with a few straightforward and judicious blows.

There is nothing ridiculous to believe in the Genesis account. God created man and woman fully formed, and the tower of Babel made God have some fun.....

Chomsky insists that
"mid-century studies based on the evolution of language from apes to humans only “bring out more clearly the extent to which human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world."

Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
We can make an argument.
Therefore, there must be laws of logic.
While this argument is circular, it is a non-fallacious use of circular reasoning. Since we couldn’t prove anything apart from the laws of logic, we must presuppose the laws of logic even to prove they exist. In fact, if someone were trying to disprove that laws of logic exist, he’d have to use the laws of logic in his attempt, thereby refuting himself. Your non-Christian friend must agree there are certain standards that can be proven with circular reasoning.

The basic presupposition—God exists and has revealed Himself in His inerrant, authoritative Word—is the ultimate standard. Presupposing God exists to argue that God exists is a reasonable circular argument because without the God of the Bible, we have no basis for assuming the laws of logic and their properties, let alone absolute morality or the uniformity of nature.

Human Language: The Homo Homolog

Language: The origin of language S0cMwac

Language: The origin of language Langua10

When Ardipithecus ramidus, our ancestor, split from Pan troglodytes, our common ancestor with apes, the mindless brain neurons went through a genetic mutation, and suddenly produced by accident a mind with conscience. It suddenly plopped into existence. And so, language and logic. First rudimentary and limited, but it gradually evolved, and the young mind began to ask itself: Where am i? Who am i? And discovered Math, and began doing simple calculus. Like        1 + 1 = 2. And here we are.  Makes sense ?!

Last edited by Admin on Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:55 pm; edited 5 times in total

View user profile



Human Language: The Homo Homolog 1

Editor's note: In his new book Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton not only updates the argument from his groundbreaking Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985) but also presents a powerful new critique of Darwinian evolution. This article is one in a series in which Dr. Denton summarizes some of the most important points of the new book. For the full story, get your copy of Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis. For a limited time, you'll enjoy a 30 percent discount at CreateSpace by using the discount code QBDHMYJH.
Our own kind, Homo sapiens, slipped suddenly into being on the rich, game-laden African grasslands of the late Pleistocene, and spread rapidly over the next 200,000 years to every corner of the world. Here was the greatest of novelties, a new type of being -- for the first time a creator and molder of the world -- a speaking and thinking being, knowing, insightful, artistic, and religious. As well as a hunter, here was a storyteller, a mystic, a seer, and a dreamer. Nothing before in evolution had hinted at the possibility of such a novel organism. The radical nature of this mysterious happening, and the unprecedented intellectual advance it entailed, is shown graphically in the marvelous frescoes of cave art of the upper Paleolithic in Europe.
One of the most curious features of human evolution, and one that poses at the outset an intriguing and still unanswered challenge to the Darwinian and functionalist narrative, is the fact that all modern humans share the same higher intellectual capabilities. This means, incredible though it may seem, a brain capable of the intellectual feats of an Einstein, a Newton, or a Mozart must have already emerged in our last common ancestors more than 200,000 years ago. Such intellectual abilities seem absurdly powerful, beyond any conceivable utility for hunter-gatherers on that ancient savanna, and hence beyond any functionalist explanation.
As Noam Chomsky recently commented: "[Alfred Russel Wallace] recognized that mathematical capacities [for example] could not have evolved by natural selection; it's impossible because everybody's got them, and nobody's ever used them, except for some very tiny fringe of people in very recent times. Plainly they developed in some other way."1
From an evolutionary point of view, the origin of man's higher intellectual abilities is one of the greatest of all mysteries, of all facts to be explained. It would certainly seem, in light of these preliminary observations that the origin and evolution of our intellectual powers must have involved causal factors beyond natural selection.
Some of our mental abilities and emotional traits are certainly shared to some degree by other species, but language, as Chomsky comments, is without any homolog in any other species.2 Language is a Type-defining homolog, restricted to an individual species, and like other such homologs, it is not led up to by any empirically known sequence (e.g., starting with simple "grunts and gestures" and progressing though more and more complex communication systems till we reach human language). And again, no plausible hypothetical evolutionary series has ever been proposed. Thus, just as in the case of other defining novelties, the evidence is consistent with a saltational origin.
Because of the lack of homology and the lack of plausible adaptive evolutionary steps, the origin of language remains an abiding mystery. In two final articles in this series, we'll look at other aspects of this mystery.

The best-known linguist of the twentieth century, Noam Chomsky, though an atheist, has consistently maintained that there is no connection;  and that, as Descartes (not surprisingly) insisted long before him, language is “species-specific”, and must have originated in humanity through some genetic input. To this extent, trans-speciate evolution seldom came into the picture in linguistics.

In fact, Chomsky insists that mid-century studies based on the evolution of language from apes to humans only “bring out more clearly the extent to which human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.”


(1) Noam Chomsky, The Science of Language: Interviews with James McGilvray (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 15.
(2) Chomsky, The Science of Language, 47; Marc D. Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert C. Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky, and Richard C. Lewontin, "The Mystery of Language Evolution," Frontiers in Psychology 5, no. 401 (May 7, 2014).


Last edited by Admin on Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:42 am; edited 7 times in total

View user profile


THE EXPRESSION OF THE EMOTIONS, how did they emerge?

That question has entertained Darwin and colleagues, and they published a book on the topic:

Darwin, C. R. 1872. The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: John Murray.


What emerged first: The WILL to express these emotions and actually to have them, or the physical facial capability to do so ????

There is not only an interdependence and irreducible complexity in biological and biochemical systems, but the Body-mind is interwoven,  they form a unity, but are separated entities at the same time !!  The body-mind relationship is truly one of the great mysteries of science.

Language: The origin of language Uc6C561

View user profile

4Language: The origin of language Empty Re: Language: The origin of language on Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:06 am


Quantum physics points to the fact that matter is an illusion, but everything is energy. Atoms are energy in action, and energy is an expression of the mind, which holds all matter together:

Nothing exists outside of the Mind! God is Mind. Matter is an illusion of Consciousness.

What comes first, mind or matter?

Near Death experience , evidence of dualism

The Mind is Not The Brain

Consciousness is a quality of the mind. The mind can only express itself through language.

How could logic and language evolve from non-language and non-logic?

THE EXPRESSION OF THE EMOTIONS, how did they emerge?

What emerged first: The WILL to express these emotions and actually to have them, or the physical facial capability to do so ????

There is not only an interdependence and irreducible complexity in biological and biochemical systems, but the Body-mind is interwoven,  they form a unity, but are separated entities at the same time !!  The body-mind relationship is truly one of the great mysteries of science.

View user profile

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum