Creation, evolution and epistemology

In reading a book a book on epistemology (by Nicholas Rescher) it struck me that the whole subject provided strong evidence against the veracity of evolutionary theory.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'The need for knowledge is part and parcel to our nature. A deep-rooted demand for information and understanding presses in on us, and we have little choice but to satisfy it. Once the ball is set rolling it keeps on under its own momentum—far beyond the limits of strictly practical necessity. [1.]

- In my opinion, Rescher has just refuted evolutionary theory, but doesn't see it.
If man is just an animal why does he have this need for knowledge? Why don't all animals have it then? This makes no sense to me. (But then I'm not up for tenure.)

It makes no sense to me to compare the quest for knowledge to the physics of a rolling ball. I must be missing something. (Maybe one of those obligatory courses in Darwinian indoctrination.) This is about as poor an analogy as I can imagine. Apparently all of man's intellectual heritage can be accounted for by the laws of motion.

B. 'For sure, knowledge brings great benefits. The relief of ignorance is foremost among them.We have evolved within nature into the ecological niche of an intelligent being. In consequence, the need for understanding, for “knowing one’s way about,” is one of the most fundamental demands of the human condition. [2.]

- Evolved into intelligence eh? We're supposed to believe that the loss of information possessed by a monkey leads to the wonder of human intelligence? I don't think that people who accept a 'howler' like that (speaking of monkeys) are thinking critically enough. I see no way that copying mistakes could lead to human intelligence. This is like trying to climb a mountain by falling down.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the loss of information (which is what mutations are) can lead to the gaining of new functions. If this were the case old age (with its loss of memory) would lead to ever increasing intelligence.

C. 'Knowledge is a situational imperative for us humans to acquire information about the world. Homo sapiens is a creature that must, by its very nature, feel cognitively at home in the world. The requirement for information, for cognitive orientation within our environment, is as pressing a human need as that for food itself. The basic human urge to make sense of things is a characteristic aspect of our makeup—we cannot live a satisfactory life in an environment we do not understand.'

- I see no evidence animals have this need. (I also see no evidence they need to go to school, or need an education.) I conclude therefore, that man is not an animal. The implication of this is that E. theory (as currently propagated in textbooks and in/on the popular media) is incorrect. Thus Rescher has shown the inadequacy of evolutionary (M2M) theory. I see this as evidence that even people who affirm Darwinism know (at the very least) that it's a woefully inadequate explanation of reality.

D. 'For us intelligent creatures, cognitive orientation is itself a practical need: cognitive disorientation is physically stressful and distressing.'

- Let's remember now that in terms of e. theory all human thinking, feeling and behavior must be explained in terms of various genes, that were produced by a process of blind chance and random mutation. Our question then is this; does E. theory do a good job of explaining man's deepest intellectual desires? (But perhaps you don't feel the pain over these questions that professor Rescher does.)

Rescher spoke earlier of the desire for philosophical coherence (between various truth claims). I ask you; is there a good Darwinian explanation for such a thing? Is there one that's true? Is there one that makes any sense? Is there one that's coherent? (Maybe good philosophers produce more progeny.)

- M. Johnson

Notes;
1. Epistemology - Rescher 2003 (Introduction; xvii)
2. To the best of my knowledge Rescher accepts the theory of evolution.
- Rescher needs some relief from ignorance himself. I see his belief in the Darwinism as part of the weary surrender by our intellectuals to the Darwinian bullies.
3. When using the term evolution in this post I'm referring to macro (M2M) evolution.
4. M. Johnson [frfarer at Gmail.com]