Martha,

Getting back to your point a few posts ago,

There's also those who go to great lengths to explain away supernatural events by doing elaborate maneuvers to make natural data sufficient to explain their causality.

If I understand correctly, the collection of rocks at Stonehenge is the example you propose? Followed by the "if - then" proposition; IF one takes the logical leap that Stonehenge was constructed by intelligent creators - THEN one must also accept that the universe was constructed by AN intelligent creator because of its beauty and economy of design.

I cannot debate this further. I just don't follow your reasoning.

Peace,

Antsy

Hi again Antsy

Instead of thinking of this in terms of a debate, maybe it would be good to try to think of it more as an exchange of perspectives, I just don't want to be combative.

I was drawing an analogy.

Reasonable people look at Stonehenge and automatically rule out the possibility that the stones came into that position by random forces. We know there was an intelligent being who ordered them.

But then we look at a DNA molecule, or a bird or human which are supremely more complex and intricate than Stonehenge and the atheist insists that there is no intelligent being who created them, but rather that they are a product of random action. To make this seem more plausible, theories are put forward of a big bang, matter coming forth and combining in different forms over bazillions of years until one fine day, there's DNA... & etc. It's nothing more than the random forces theory gussied up, the very same theory we de facto reject in the case of Stonehenge.

In my opinion it's like how a magician uses misdirection so he can pull off a trick. The concept of bazillions of millenia is so mind-overloading that it can almost seem like hey, maybe ANYTHING is possible over THAT long a time. It misdirects our reasoning or gives us a mental charliehorse, which stuns our commonsense knowledge that things of great order and complexity come from greater causes - ie intelligent beings, and not random happenstance, even bazillions of years of random happenstance.

We have no problem recognizing this with Stonehenge, so why the problem with DNA or a kitten, a tree, or you or me??

It is not my intention to offend and yet I do want to defend the reasonablity of the theist's position. The theist is not being unscientific in believing in God, it's just that God is beyond the reach of science, (you can't get him in a microscope or telescope). Yet, just as we can get clues about any artist from their artwork, so when we look at the beauty, power, synergy and complexity of the natural world and apply the same commonsense we use when we look at Stonehenge we deduce an intelligent being behind the natural world and can begin to discover qualities of this hidden artist.

Science doesn't have any problem with DNA. Evolution theory and natural selection draw a clear line which shows that true randomness does not command the equation. One might argue that mutation is a random event but Natural Selection quickly weeds out poor mutation in favor of those that benefit the species. Science does not, however, explain with absolute certainty the origins of the universe. It can demonstrate theories with mathematical models but it is not something that we can re-create in a laboratory. I personally don't believe that this should give us license to abandon science in favor of superstition. Why would your origin story be any more believable than a sheep herders in the horn of Africa? Or a Tibetan Monk's? That is what is meant by plurality. It is just as likely Leprechauns as it is the god of Jewish nomads six thousand years ago.

The question remains: Why look at Stonehenge and say, "This did not happen by random events, this was the work of intelligent beings" and then look at a bird or tree and say "this was not the work of an intelligent being, this was the product of random events" How is this scientific?

The question remains: Why look at Stonehenge and say, "This did not happen by random events, this was the work of intelligent beings" and then look at a bird or tree and say "this was not the work of an intelligent being, this was the product of random events" How is this scientific?

Because when we look at Stonehenge and compare it with the rest of the natural world, we find that nowhere else has nature been responsible for laying out rocks in that fashion. We then look at the works of man and find that man has a penchant for stacking big rocks independent of the knowledge of other men doing the same on the other side of the world. We see a pattern in man's behavior and feel that we can safely attribute this additional pile of rocks to the works of man. There is no need to add plurality here, it's a pile of rocks in a pattern and man has a history of doing just that very thing. Mystery solved.

We then turn our attention to birds and / or trees and ask, "is this the work of man?" We answer again by looking at our own activities over thousands of years and find that we do not, in fact, create trees and birds. Scientists and philosophers spent centuries turning the problem over in their collective heads and tried many theories all of which were found to be wanting until young Mr. Darwin gave us "The Origin of Species". We took his work and turned it upside down and tried again and again to disprove it. Instead it held up to our scrutiny, although we have been able to improve on the original work as technology has allowed us to look ever so much closer to the building blocks of life. And once again, without the need for further unnecessary plurality, the mystery is solved.

If this is all news to you, I can recommend some additional reading which makes sense of the science but is written for lay people.

You're speaking as if evolution has been proved. It hasn't and there's plenty of scientists who don't agree with it. The missing link is still missing. Nowhere in our everyday experience do we see randomness producing order. I drop my dish, random splinters all over, it never forms a teacup. I put my clothes in the dryer, the sox never come out matched and paired, there's an exposion of metal at the scrapyard, it never produces a boeing 747, or even a bicycle. It's entropy, things naturally unravel into greater disorder unless acted upon by an outside force. Just come and look at my house! 😉

Having said that, I'm ready to conclude with the topic whenever you are.

Peace be with you Antsy.
Martha

Martha,

Your conclusion is disingenuous. We haven't proven gravity conclusively either. That is not how science works. We can't "prove" an action that takes tens of thousands of years to occur because we cannot be there to observe the entire process. We do, however, have the fossil record as well as mapped DNA sequencing.

You throw little bombs like - plenty of scientists who disagree - missing link still missing - there are also those who... - how is this science?. At no point do you bother to identify the scientists you are referring to, which link you are not satisfied with, who you are referring to, or a clear understanding of just how science works. You compare events which take seconds to occur, such as an explosion in a metal scrap yard, with the evolution of a species which takes hundreds of thousands of years. You then incredulously ask, "why, if you are right, are these two events not similar?" Finally, you pull out a concept like entropy as if it were any more a law than the theory you are trying to dispute.

I sincerely doubt that you are going to bother to pick up a book which explains the accepted theories you choose to deny. Instead, I suspect you will continue to subscribe to the anecdotal opinions of apologists who agree with your point of view while never checking their facts or sources. On one thing you said I completely agree, this discussion is over.

Keep up your great prepping,

Antsy

I love the vocabulary you use Antsy...just throwing words like "superfluous" into a conversation...my husband is the same way and I quite often see him sitting back with a tea reading the dictionary...you both enthrall me!!!! I think of you as the "Sheldon's" in my life...lol