I’ve never seen that stated in Intelligent Design literature and I’ve read a lot of it.The intelligent design movement usually argues that organisms are too complex to be the result of natural processes and therefore requires a builder who directly put the parts of organisms together and produced their kinds.
They might not have used those words, but that is at the very least the implication of their arguments.Can you direct me to a reference that speaks of a builder directly putting parts of organisms together?
Maybe Michael Behe said it? Or Stephen Meyer?
Should be easy enough to find, right?
No, they also prove it.I doubt you consider the martyr’s of other religions to be compelling evidence of their truthfulness.
As we only have evidence of one species that does it as well as we do and we’ve only existed for the last 300,000 years of the 13,500,000,000 years of existence, I’d say your demand appears to be unreasonable. I can’t replicate in a lab what took a universe and 13.5 billion minus 300,000 years to produce.But if you want to understand your own being, then you have to try to discover how a blind, irrational, mindless process can create a value system based on truth and logical constructs.
Try to create one.
There is no random. Like infinity, it’s an abstraction that has no material basis.Start with random entities moving randomly.
Gravity seems to condense particle clouds into denser bodies, for starters.Then see what kind of order and purpose emerge from them.
I’ll suggest that you’re putting a spin on it. ID says certain things. It’s best to just stay with what is actually claimed.They might not have used those words, but that is at the very least the implication of their arguments.
Evolution speaks to populations not individuals. Self-sacrifice is not against evolutionary goals, you’re just thinking about evolution in a very narrow way and then insisting everything confirm to that narrow view.That is anti-evolutionary. They ruin their fitness value for the sake of something greater than evolutionary goals.
Especially for eusocial species where the “organism” is better identified as the entire colony rather than the individual, non-reproductive termite or ant.Evolution speaks to populations not individuals. Self-sacrifice is not against evolutionary goals, you’re just thinking about evolution in a very narrow way and then insisting everything confirm to that narrow view.
Ok. There’s a start. Sand particles combine for sand-dunes. Snowflakes for snow-drifts. Hydrogen and oxygen for water molecules. Some things do happen from random combinations. But remember the target and how far you have to go with it - and all with no reason, direction or purpose.Gravity seems to condense particle clouds into denser bodies, for starters.
If that is not the desired implication if their arguments, then i am sure you can explain it yourself.I’ll suggest that you’re putting a spin on it. ID says certain things. It’s best to just stay with what is actually claimed.
I understand the supposed broad-view of evolution. It’s a “theory” which cannot be falsified.Evolution speaks to populations not individuals. Self-sacrifice is not against evolutionary goals, you’re just thinking about evolution in a very narrow way and then insisting everything confirm to that narrow view.
It’s a scientific theory which absolutely can be falsified, but hasn’t. You’re the one throwing unfalsifiable claims around.It’s a “theory” which cannot be falsified.
Right. But I encourage you to remember the size of the universe.Ok. There’s a start. Sand particles combine for sand-dunes. Snowflakes for snow-drifts. Hydrogen and oxygen for water molecules. Some things do happen from random combinations. But remember the target and how far you have to go with it - and all with no reason, direction or purpose.
I really don’t think that’s a fair characterization. The overwhelming majority of atheists I know, including this atheist, do not believe in God simply because there is no demonstrable proof for God. I wouldn’t argue that God is impossible anymore than I would argue that Russell’s teapot is impossible. But I would argue that they seem to be unlikely.I find evolution to be supported often by radical skepticism (God is impossible) combined with absolute blind trust (fideism) in the power of evolution to create anything - even contradictory outcomes.
Yes, they never would have started in my view. Bacteria are quite happy without needing any evolutionary changes. The same now as always. Supposedly they needed to evolve to survive? They couldn’t find enough food and had to end up becoming human beings? I find it absurd.To me it’s merely the changes that happened after creation and it’s still controlled by God, otherwise all species would have died out by now, due to mathematical probability.