Ianjo99 said:
4) What are your three best arguments against evolution or pro-creationism (NOT “because the bible says so”).
Below appears arguments and lines of evidence against materialism and
for intelligent design by:
a non-material existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist intellect/mind that
is far superior to humans in terms of abilities and level of intelligence.
What was around first: mind, or matter?
Can matter do all the formation of what is seen in biology, i.e.
starting with simply matter, can biology come out of matter?
Is matter infinitely-old, or did matter begin to exist?
Did not-material mind/intelligence create matter-energy, and construct
biology out of matter?
Was the first mind, the first high level of intelligence, present in
a) biological organisms, specifically humans,
b) a not-human, material entity, or
c) a not-human, not-material entity?
I’m looking at a car, which I know for a fact began to exist (because
the universe in which the car resides began to exist).
Question: Which viewpoint accounts well, and accounts better, for the
origination of that car?:
viewpoint a) totally-mindless-at-every-level processes are responsible
for that car’s beginning-to-exist, or
viewpoint b) the (name removed by moderator)ut of mind/intelligence was involved in the
origination of that car.
Ponder, if you would, the following:
the second law of thermodynamics and the Big Bang theory’s
and gravity’s implications that physics began to exist,
the fact that physics and biology exhibit the appearance of
having been the product of mind/intelligence,
the origin-of-biological-life question and the fact that
brilliant chemists and biologists have thus far been
unable to intelligently-design life starting with
non-living matter,
the strong parallels between human-constructed engineering
and engineering within biology,
the many instances of interrelatedness/ connectedness present
in biological systems in which an indispensable core of
parts must be present and functioning for the systems in
question to operate,
correspondingly, the enormous number of harmful and
neutral mutations versus an absence of mutations that
could plausibly be construed as possibly being able to
contribute to the appearance of new biological
structures having new functions,
the enormous quantity of meaningful information encoded in
biological organisms’ genomes,
the fossil record’s pattern of abrupt appearance followed by
stasis,
breeders’ and fruit fly experiment results revealing limits to
what changes can be brought about by the application
of intelligent breeders and laboratory scientists.
Question: Which viewpoint accommodates well, and accommodates better,
the above data?:
viewpoint a) the philosophy of materialism, which says that only
material matter exists, or
viewpoint b) the intelligent design viewpoint, which says that a
not-material entity-- perhaps a committee of designers, and that at
least at the moments it created, existed without having had a beginning
to its existence-- created matter/physics, and-- in all likelihood that
same not-material entity, in keeping with considerations of simplicity–
in addition created biology?
(Biology clearly began to exist since the universe in which biology
resides began to exist, and almost as clearly physics began to exist
considering the second law, so the postulation of material designers of
biology who themselves must have begun to exist is not a viable option:
we would have the problem of how they originated-- and they would’ve had
to have originated/ begun to exist-- and their postulation wouldn’t help
at all with the question of how to account for the origination of and
seeming-design of physics.
