There’s a big difference between observing viruses and bacteria now, which have built-in machinery for dealing with exposure to toxic material, and organisms that existed long ago.
Which bacteria have the “built-in machinery” to produce electricity as a metabolism product? Where did the other bacteria get the “built-in machinery” to deal with substances that didn’t even exist 150 years ago?
An argument from incredulity is not reasonable, it’s a logical fallacy. When something has been shown to have happened - for example, the appearance of life on Earth - then proving that it could not have happened by chance involves proving that the probability is zero. If there is no other evidence for an intelligent agent, then probability alone is not a sufficient reason to invoke an intelligent agent. If there was evidence - say, a dropped petri dish in 4.5 billion year old rock, or clearly artificial chemical structures - then there would be a reason to invoke an agent. On its own, probability cannot be used to show that something which has already happened could not have happened without intervention.
Information Science exists, so nothing incredible there. You don’t like the intervention idea. I get that. In the meantime, an intelligent agent is clearly implied due to a lack of convincing evidence that ancient bacteria and similar, moved on and stumbled its way into making our current world of living things.
Right: first of all, false dichotomy. Second: nothing has refuted the idea that life could have occurred by chance.
Actually, the flaw in your argument is to point to the change in the bacteria, a change that was “contrived” by human researchers and then, from that, claim that such alterations could conceivably have been brought about by random mutations. Perhaps what the experimenters did was “unlock” a feature built into the genome itself that allowed these new capabilities to come about. The claim that it was merely a “random” change that engendered the capacities is “far-fetched” and assumes more than is demonstrated. How could the very feature (or something very similar to it) that was ostensibly being sought by the researchers be precisely THE capability that came to be? Something fishy right there.
This is, precisely where YOUR error is.
Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics would reject this outright since final causality - the end toward which causation tends - is considered as much a feature of “causation” as formal, material or efficient causes. Things don’t “happen by chance” in either metaphysic.
Have you not read any Aquinas? I quote “Creation is not some species of change!” and I will repeat that for you again: “Creation is not some species of change!”.
Never claimed it was, I claimed without form, on its own, matter is nothing but pure potential, receiving capacity.
Refer to Post #1864 in this very thread, that was addressed directly to you.
Take it up with Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.
The clear implication, is that the study of “potency” (material causation) is, in principle, not possible and inherently a waste of time without considering formal, final and efficient causation. In fact, utterly devoid of meaning in isolation, since the material is unintelligible without the formal.
Actually, a worse reason might exist, and that would be that those denying the preponderance of the evidence might be led to do so by a stubbornness or pride that will not allow them to back down from their position. But my saying as I did was not meant to be hurtful, only to try to place reasons for the seeming inconsistency with reason itself. If after examining the evidence I still rejected evolution as the most probable cause of things as they are, then I would expect to find my reason in a belief that God had revealed otherwise and that it was necessary for me to believe against all reason to the contrary. For me, “flaws” do not disprove evolution as the most probable cause of the development of the universe, but they may suggest other factors at work, as well.
That doesn’t imply what the original point I was replying to: that equated matter with nothing. Read my post closer next time, this isn’t the first time you have attacked a strawman.
If you read my point carefully, I said ‘on its own’ which is to say ‘without form’ it is nothing. Potency is only ‘potential’ i.e., non-existent, that becomes ‘something’ when it is actualized by form. Again, on its own it is nothing. Only when it is actualized can we make any distinction between the actual and its potential to exist. It wouldn’t make sense to speak of potential without reference to any actuality. That is the sense in which ‘pure potential’ is nothing meaningful.
You are still equating Creation with a species of change (from potency to actuality) which is not creation. In the thought of Aquinas and Aristotle prime matter (pure potency) was not nothing, It is to be actualised through form, but this is still a species of change/motion and not creation.
Thank you for that. I may have difficulty explaining myself, but I do agree with the article. I don’t see evolution as the only explanation for everything that exists, but I certainly do see it as part of the explanation. I find it impossible to see evolution apart from Creator who set it in motion, and I have no idea how far reaching are its consequences or how far it can go to explain all things the way they currently exist. But I do find that any argument that excludes it entirely is not owning up to the evidence that exists. Why can’t we have evolution within the notion of intelligent design? I see them as compatible, complimentary, not contrary to each other, unless you push either to the absurd. Evolution cannot exclude God, norcan intelligent design exclude evolution. Does this make sense to you?
All of science employs inductive reasoning, so how does showing ID employs inductive reasoning show ID is any different from what currently engages science? What you have shown is that ID is no different than any other form of science.
We seem to be very similar in thought.