It’s like any subject, Pete. It’s not so much a question of intelligence but of practice. In daily life we don’t spend much time on these topics but when you’re discussing them every day of the week you soon get to grips with them.I imagined I was intelligent until I read some of these posts. WOW! Way over my head.
That’s more than enough proof to debunk the unfounded (“cliche”) claims that the faith is blind, irrational, etc…I imagined I was intelligent until I read some of these posts. WOW! Way over my head.
Claire O’Connell, who reported on the event for New Scientist, has summarised his views:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/software_machin062211.html
You’ve not addressed a single point, except with obfuscation, irrelevancy, and the verbal equivalent of plain old farm animal droppings. Expecting honesty and intelligence, I’m disappointed, and done with you.
Dear FS~
Well about the contradiction question I assumed it was a misread on my part or a mis intended possible suggestion on your part…thats why I made a clear mark of saying…just curious…So obviously thats…that.
Hatha yoga is better than none, as they say.
Thanks again and if anyone is reading this in conclusion for now and back to reading I want to make a small comment on Hatha yoga due to a possible interest arising. The easiest well being approach to be mis taught and mucked up in my view is Hatha Yoga. I found in reading the early writings in the research dept at the …can’t remove from the library dept…the only well explained . Contemporary translations, even instructors in my opinion are clueless. Patience is hugely import and even what appears to be a piece of cake positions, together with the focus required and breathing insist on very careful patient progress. It is a marvelous thing which I’m hoping humanity will properly appreciate in time.Movement and space as we move through the day is import Anyway…Hatha yoga is better than none, as they say.
The way I see it is that Consciousness is Fundamental. Consciousness is the Light to the awareness of ideas and thought. So given that, one is best served, as far as I can see, by working out from the unchanging Center, so that reason is grounded in Reality. That is how I see.
Only in your dreams.That’s more than enough proof to debunk the unfounded (“cliche”) claims that the faith is blind, irrational, etc…
Good point. Living organisms have all the functionality of software-driven machines – and far more than that. Even if they were just machines – that would be strong evidence of design. But the fact that they create, seek, innovate and strategize about many things, even beyond survival is an even more profound indicator of Design in their origin.
When anything is described as an “imperfect design” it points to the existence of The Perfect. The criticism against design-evidence that refers to imperfection is a theological observation - not scientific or philosophical. “No omnipotent, perfect Designer wouldn’t do it that way” – that’s a theological view. We see that all the time from materialists. “A perfect God wouldn’t create an imperfect design like this DNA code”.
Once again, it’s contradictory.
Atomic particles don’t want or need to survive. They don’t even need to form molecules. Living organisms are reducible (supposedly) to same inert, unintelligent particles. The desire to survive, the struggle to survive, even the sacrifices animals make to find a mate and reproduce (salmon swimming upstream to their spawning grounds, etc) – cannot find its origin in purposeless atomic matter.You mentioned Elitism previously. It’s common to find people who think they’re more special than all the rest of the human race. They think they’re more intelligent, and the rest of humanity is “ignorant and lazy”. We find that in the sinful attitude of eugenicists – “useless” people are condemned.
Great point. I think people are more distant from nature lately and they don’t actually go outside to look at things. When you say “unlikely” – that’s the key point. We take it for granted that plants not only feed animals as food, but provide oxygen. Plus there are trees. Why would trees provide the incredibly useful material called “wood” for so many building usages – and paper, and sap and fuel – and how they contribute to the cycle of nature in the forest? Leaves creating a “floor”, which feeds organisms in the soil which feed birds and animals and plants, which support the growth of trees …
And to the extent that I’ve read the work of naturalist evolutionists, it’s a question I’ve never seen them touch!
:thumbsup:The further we penetrate into this topic the more overwhelmed I become! Even the objections against Design serve to reinforce it. People don’t bother to refute something blatantly weak and unconvincing.Good point. Living organisms have all the functionality of software-driven machines – and far more than that. Even if they were just machines – that would be strong evidence of design. But the fact that they create, seek, innovate and strategize about many things, even beyond survival is an even more profound indicator of Design in their origin.
That was a fascinating article also – thanks for posting it.
An interesting quote at the end …
The argument does not depend upon the similarity of DNA to a computer program or human language, but upon the presence of an identical feature in both DNA and intelligently designed codes, languages, and artifacts. Because we know intelligent agents can (and do) produce complex and functionally specified sequences of symbols and arrangements of matter, intelligent agency qualifies as an adequate causal explanation for the origin of this effect. Since, in addition, materialistic theories have proven universally inadequate for explaining the origin of such information, intelligent design now stands as the only entity with the causal power known to produce this feature of living systems. Therefore, the presence of this feature in living systems points to intelligent design as the best explanation of it, whether such systems resemble human artifacts in other ways or not.
We can see the teleology in an ordered process, specified to fulfill purposes. But this is even more – we observe features in DNA that (as far as we know) can only be produced by intelligence.
When anything is described as an “imperfect design” it points to the existence of The Perfect. The criticism against design-evidence that refers to imperfection is a theological observation - not scientific or philosophical. “No omnipotent, perfect Designer wouldn’t do it that way” – that’s a theological view. We see that all the time from materialists. “A perfect God wouldn’t create an imperfect design like this DNA code”.
That indicates that materialists had to consider what God is – then they use their theological view to measure what they find in nature. Darwin’s theory was essentially theological in that way. He wanted to argue against the fixity of species and to explain the presence of evil in nature. Both of those views were informed by the Bible.
As Catholics, we already have several answers to the problem of evil in nature. But if atheist-materialists want an answer to the question: “Why would God create an imperfect design?” – then they should be willing to explore Catholic theology for some answers.
Instead, they conclude that God couldn’t or wouldn’t do it that way – and therefore, God doesn’t exist.
We observe imperfect design – that points to the existence of perfection. We can observe (what we think are) “flaws” – that refers to the flawless. To call something “imperfectly designed” is to assert that a purpose exists. The thing is “designed for a purpose” – and we claim that “it doesn’t fulfill the purpose it was designed for very well”.
That is all evidence for design – since only design can create things that fulfill a purpose.
For me this - together with the primacy of reason, freedom and love - is by far the most convincing evidence there is.
When a living organism dies, it just becomes non-living matter. Why would there be any struggle to avoid that consequence? Wouldn’t non-living matter “want” to remain what it is and not have to go through the struggle for survival?
Indeed. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - which so many people claim to accept and respect - have no rational basis if we are all related solely by an accident of birth instead of being children of the same Father. They become merely human conventions that can be - and often are - rejected or neglected.