J
Jonesboy
Guest
Is intelligence the genesis of form? That is, can forms be created without intelligence?
Evolutionists argues that intelligence is not the genesis of natural forms, and so presume that God need not be the genesis of natural forms.
Creationists argue that intelligence is the genesis of natural forms.
The strange thing, strange because unnoticed, is that the creationist can agree with the evolutionist that there is no intelligent design in nature, and yet lose no ground on the argument for God as the genesis for natural forms.
Why is this? Both the creationists and the evolutionist argue for form whether construed as an illusionary Dawkinian designoid, or as a misconstrued “intelligent design”. And it is precisely that form that offers the argument for God. For in a nature that is necessarily chaotic or formless, having no prepackaged forms or objects as it were, it becomes necessary for a supra-material agent or source to provide them.
These forms of God are more than a Dawkinian designoidal abstract. They are the identifying conditions of objects. The evolutionist needs such identifying conditions to identify a natural form. It is not the complexity of a natural form that demonstrates God, but the fact that there is a form that can identify complexity.
The forms of God are also ontological in that forms that are identified also have life breathed into them, where such “breath” is a perception of the realm of forms, the natural world: just as the material form that our human-ness has identified as “the brain” is itself the source of perception or forms. Such perceptions are, I have argued, necessary for a reason that Kant notices, that there can be no material bridge between materiality and form or perception. Materials, the business of evolutionists, are simply the sort of things that have no innate boundaries, they do not provide forms. We need a supernatural or non-material agent for that provision.
Evolutionists argues that intelligence is not the genesis of natural forms, and so presume that God need not be the genesis of natural forms.
Creationists argue that intelligence is the genesis of natural forms.
The strange thing, strange because unnoticed, is that the creationist can agree with the evolutionist that there is no intelligent design in nature, and yet lose no ground on the argument for God as the genesis for natural forms.
Why is this? Both the creationists and the evolutionist argue for form whether construed as an illusionary Dawkinian designoid, or as a misconstrued “intelligent design”. And it is precisely that form that offers the argument for God. For in a nature that is necessarily chaotic or formless, having no prepackaged forms or objects as it were, it becomes necessary for a supra-material agent or source to provide them.
These forms of God are more than a Dawkinian designoidal abstract. They are the identifying conditions of objects. The evolutionist needs such identifying conditions to identify a natural form. It is not the complexity of a natural form that demonstrates God, but the fact that there is a form that can identify complexity.
The forms of God are also ontological in that forms that are identified also have life breathed into them, where such “breath” is a perception of the realm of forms, the natural world: just as the material form that our human-ness has identified as “the brain” is itself the source of perception or forms. Such perceptions are, I have argued, necessary for a reason that Kant notices, that there can be no material bridge between materiality and form or perception. Materials, the business of evolutionists, are simply the sort of things that have no innate boundaries, they do not provide forms. We need a supernatural or non-material agent for that provision.