My problem with the intellect-from-intellect logic is that we have no evidence of intellect ever creating intellect. What we do have is a wide variety of intellect in biology, which suggests that small incremental changes could possibly build intellect over time.
What suggests that? Yes, we have a vast amount of intellect in the world. Now where did it come from? We don't even have answers to the beginning of life, much less any indication of how intellect came into the mix. My point is that we can't stop mid-stream in the causes and effects. We have to go back to the original. When trying to explain the existence of intellect, you can't just point to its existence and say that it got better as it went.
And we do have a precident of intellect causing intellect. Artificial intelligence is a fast-growing field right now. True, we haven't created intellect equal to our own, but that merely indicates that a greater intelligence was at work.
You rightly take issue with scientists who step into the realm of philosophy without checking their labcoat at the door. Yet, there's at least as large an issue with clergy and laymen who try to contradict accepted science with a priori arguments dressed up as empirical statements.
I can see how you would interpret it that way. And to a certain extent I agree with you. I see a lot of clergy claiming paper-mill degrees so that they can speak as scientists. But I also see scientists bringing up valid points that contradict "accepted" science. There is a difference, and I would hope that you would make the distinction.
And I'm surprised that you would tread so dangerously close to the fallacies of arguing to popularity, arguing to authority and that of the bandwagon. After arguing so well in defense of the (accepted?) scientists who use the scientific process to contradict accepted science, are you now indicating that science should just go with the masses? Or are you saying that only scientists have the authority to apply critical thinking, reasoning and intelligence to our surroundings? I don't have to be a cobbler to know if my shoes hurt my feet. :)
I think the picture you paint of these empirical statements breaks down in the details, though. The ID camp isn't making this stuff up, dogg. Even "accepted" scientists recognize and comment on the apparent design in nature. To claim that the Judeo-Christian God did it is an a priori statement. To dismiss it as only "apparent" is an a priori statement. To state that there is design apparent in nature is empirical evidence. What one does with that information is a matter of their own worldview.
I've stated my beliefs using empirical statements, but not as a scientist. I've gone to great lengths to tie the apparent design and the need for a cause. This tie between empirical statements is a large part of why I believe that a personal, intelligent God is behind this. This is not such a huge a priori jump either. This logical conclusion is why so many in the naturalist camp so strongly dislike the ideas of a first cause and intelligent design. Apparently us Christians aren't the only ones that see this conection.
My problem with the
My problem with the intellect-from-intellect logic is that we have no evidence of intellect ever creating intellect. What we do have is a wide variety of intellect in biology, which suggests that small incremental changes could possibly build intellect over time.
What suggests that? Yes, we have a vast amount of intellect in the world. Now where did it come from? We don't even have answers to the beginning of life, much less any indication of how intellect came into the mix. My point is that we can't stop mid-stream in the causes and effects. We have to go back to the original. When trying to explain the existence of intellect, you can't just point to its existence and say that it got better as it went.
And we do have a precident of intellect causing intellect. Artificial intelligence is a fast-growing field right now. True, we haven't created intellect equal to our own, but that merely indicates that a greater intelligence was at work.
You rightly take issue with scientists who step into the realm of philosophy without checking their labcoat at the door. Yet, there's at least as large an issue with clergy and laymen who try to contradict accepted science with a priori arguments dressed up as empirical statements.
I can see how you would interpret it that way. And to a certain extent I agree with you. I see a lot of clergy claiming paper-mill degrees so that they can speak as scientists. But I also see scientists bringing up valid points that contradict "accepted" science. There is a difference, and I would hope that you would make the distinction.
And I'm surprised that you would tread so dangerously close to the fallacies of arguing to popularity, arguing to authority and that of the bandwagon. After arguing so well in defense of the (accepted?) scientists who use the scientific process to contradict accepted science, are you now indicating that science should just go with the masses? Or are you saying that only scientists have the authority to apply critical thinking, reasoning and intelligence to our surroundings? I don't have to be a cobbler to know if my shoes hurt my feet. :)
I think the picture you paint of these empirical statements breaks down in the details, though. The ID camp isn't making this stuff up, dogg. Even "accepted" scientists recognize and comment on the apparent design in nature. To claim that the Judeo-Christian God did it is an a priori statement. To dismiss it as only "apparent" is an a priori statement. To state that there is design apparent in nature is empirical evidence. What one does with that information is a matter of their own worldview.
I've stated my beliefs using empirical statements, but not as a scientist. I've gone to great lengths to tie the apparent design and the need for a cause. This tie between empirical statements is a large part of why I believe that a personal, intelligent God is behind this. This is not such a huge a priori jump either. This logical conclusion is why so many in the naturalist camp so strongly dislike the ideas of a first cause and intelligent design. Apparently us Christians aren't the only ones that see this conection.
Be blessed...