T
tonyrey
Guest
The onus is on you to equate the mind with the brain or vice versa.No one understands how the mind and brain are related but unless you are a materialist or an idealist they must be and their interaction implies that ID must be science to some extent.
My current goal is to finish this sentence, but that doesn’t mean I evolved with the goal of finishing this sentence.All animals have a self-preservation instinct from the instant they appear. They are unaware of it but it is a goal nevertheless.
I evolved with a goal-making ability.
We can know some aspects of God…So our goals and the goals of other forms of life throw no light whatsoever on God’s goals? We can know nothing whatsoever about God from what occurs in the world?
That is the contention of the Design argument!
I agree.… but I’m still saying that whatever goals He had and has, people interpret the evidence differently and no one knows the mind of God.
That is the role of the laws of nature.It is quite unnecessary to draw up millions of designs for every species and subspecies. The information system we call DNA is quite adequate for that task.
DNA is how it’s encoded, but it’s necessary for the intelligent agent to (name removed by moderator)ut the design, otherwise it/she/he is out of a job. There are millions of species, millions of designs. Doesn’t each require the intelligent agent to draw up a separate design brief?
Ah, here I’d tend to call these countless coincidences natural phenomena.If you think the universe is not immensely complex with countless coincidences you must regard it as a supermarket with only one product!
They are generally due to the interplay of the laws of nature but the immense complexity of the universe necessitates divine intervention.
They join because given the right conditions they can’t help themselves.Why and how do they join and succeed in becoming photoreceptive? By sheer Chance?
The right conditions presuppose Design.
An orderly universe points to DesignIn the same way, rocks form into a sphere when there’s sufficient mass, and we call them planets. They do it naturally because it’s in their nature, not because an intelligent agent designs planets.
Christ’s teaching about sparrows and Providence in the Gospels covers photoreceptors!We had a dog I named Chance, because he gave me a chance. Christ also gave me a chance, but ID, developed I guess to support belief, requires we talk about photoreceptors instead of the gospel. Funny old world.
Your recapitulation of Dawkins has the same radical flaw: the assumption that given enough time anything is possible. Not only are particles prior to persons they are also their progenitors! You use your mind to prove you are mindless!!!No, what we see is possible, what we don’t see may never be possible.
Being possible does not entail being probable or even highly probable.
Your faith in the power of Chance is touching but it doesn’t correspond to what Jesus told us about our loving Father in heaven.Even given the entire life-span of the universe, a shattered glass is highly unlikely to spontaneously reform. There’s nothing in the laws of physics to say it can’t, it’s just incredibly unlikely. On the other hand, given an ocean containing zillions of proteins and a few thousands of years, some combine, you can’t stop the little fellers. Given quite a while longer, we get to have brains.
Not natural thingumabobs. Cast off your monism bro, and set yourself free from the slavery of material determinism!Not supernatural thingumabobs. Cast off this dualism bro, set yourself free!
