I knew the standard ID arguments would come out, but I never expected them so quickly.
This shouldn't surprize you since I mentioned in a few places that I believe that scientific theories must in large part be filtered through these greater questions of "beginnings". The naturalist/empiricist prepositions will boil down to how they try to explain these greater questions, and they have offered no reasonable explanation for the most basic questions, such as "I think, therefore I am". Or, ex nihilo nihil fit...
If the scientific theories that rely on naturalism as their dogma defy the most basic logic and reason that we adhere to as the core of our intellect, then they should be looked on with suspicion. It boils down to the battle of a priori statements, as we have both illuded to or implicitly stated. When this is the case, we must take an honest look at the statements and see which is a more reasonable lense to interpret data through.
The naturalistic presuppositions dictate that:
(A) The cosmos came to being through the act of no outside, transcendent and (especially) intelligent cause. The need for this cause is seldom argued against these days due to the scientific observations of the last century or so. So, the bedrock of naturalist science is that either the universe sprang into existence from truly nothing, or that the universe is self-existent despite its pinpoint beginning in a singularity, or that the universe is caused by some other cause such as a mythological universe factory.
The first and second explanations defy all logic and reason. They defy every observable and logically sound thought that can be applied to them. They are a willful suppression of what we know as inherently true of the possible and impossible. The last explanation merely pushes the "cause" back a step. To explain our observations of apparent design, they all rely on absolutely unscientific "just-so" explanations.
(B) Life sprang forth by chance from a chemical concoction when base chemicals coincidentally combined into proteins that coincidentally combined into DNA that coincidentally formed a literal alphebet that carries literal information. This too relies on "just-so" theories in an effort to side-step the apparent design in the apparent information. It ignores the Principle of Uniformity that good science is based on, in that it requires conditions on Earth that we have no evidence ever existed, and which would have killed any life that may per-chance have formed in the first place. It is a process that scientists are presently trying to recreate in the lab to no avail. It is a statistical impossibility based on the actions of something that has no power whatsoever-- chance.
The naturalistic a priori statements claim repeatedly, in several contexts that nothing does something miraculous. The ID/Christian/Theist a priori statements claim that something did something, and further that Someone capable of the miraculous performed the miraculous. It is an intelectually dishonest statement that naturalists do not believe in the miraculous. The truth is that they believe in the impossibly miraculous by dismissing a sufficient cause to the miraculous that we see inherent in our life.
In this philosophical diatribe, I'll leave it up to each reader to decide which set of a priori statements seem more plausable, and more congruent with observation to earn the right as "filter" by which we screen the data.
You're applying the filter of naturalism by interpreting "evolutionary time" into the data presented. Isn't this a circular argument? Evolution is true because we see "evolutionary time". Evolutionary time happened because evolution is true. This argument is making the assertion that similarity means "kinship" and that one came from the last, which came from the previous... I am unconvinced, especially considering that it is an extension of the presupposition that nothing did something miraculous.
You state that the fossil record is devoid of transitional evidence.
For the record, I did not make that statement that I can recall. I sincerely do question any specimen that is offered as a transition fossil. I question the assertion because any claim for a transitional fossil is a forensic interpretation. It is jumping to the conclusion that similarity is evolution, as mentioned above. What I did do was question where all of the needed transition fossils are?
I am said to be quote-mining when I go back to the statements of the authorities that I am asked to trust. Classic Darwinism calls for a steady "stream" of transition fossils if it is true. During the long expanse of "evolutionary time" life has been steadily evolving. Therefore, we should be seeing transitional fossils all over the place. But we don't. We see a very few fossils that some interpret as transitional. Classic Darwinism is applying the "god-of-the-gaps" in its science.
Yes, Darwin lived 100 years ago. The gaps are still there. Evolution still relies on natural selection and an explanse of time with life evolving steadily, which should be producing an incredible amount of transitional evidence. The fossil record still doesn't reflect this.
That's why we have "punctuated equellibrium" on the scene now, and the intense infighting within the evolution camps. At least some of these scientists that you refer to, who have spent their lives persuing knowledge, recognize the failure in classic evolution. They recognize the bare shelves of the fossil record. And the evolution of sudden transition is a reliance on the miraculous, yet fails in the same way as mentioned above. They have robbed their miracles of that which can perform the miraculous.
That's why I don't feel such a need to break down species as you ask that I do. I'm sorry. I am not interpreting data through the "evolutionary time" constraint that you claim is apparent. I am not inferring that similarity equals descent. Just as I see apparent design in every facet of existence, I see that the design contains similarities.
Now, I know that this is not exactly the response that you had hoped for. I know that you may even see this as a cop-out. I can in all honesty say that this is not the intent. I am trying to get you to go back to the very foundations of how we should judge what we are presented, most especially on subjects of data that are beyond our ability to observe directly. Test the presuppositions that are offered you against that which you have at your disposal, dogg. Does the worldview that seeks to answer these greater questions for you stand up to scrutiny at the most basic level?
Common sense should be based on sound reason and logic. Naturalism fails miserably. Neither of us can discard or ignore the miraculous we see in life, the universe and everything else. Ask yourself what greater there is to explain it. When facing these types of data, filter it through that which gives the greatest reasonable answer to the miraculous we see in all of this.
I applaud you in your honesty. We are all desperate for the answers to the greater questions. It is sad that many or most rely solely on that which can't answer them and reject that which can.
I've said from the start of my time in this blog-site that I am not seeking to prove God. I would be sadly disappointed in my attempts if that were the case. I do, however, hope to show Him as a reasonable response to what we observe. He is. And He can be known.
I pray that you will try to, because He can't be known from without. One must stop suppressing that which is evident. And that takes a conscious decision to do so. Romans 1 states that God can be known by that which is created. In other words, existence points to Him. And it does, if one stops willfully suppressing that truth.
Again, I hope that this does not come across as cop-out laced with appeal to emotion. I've tried to explain the filter by which I judge the data which is presented as evidence. Aside from that, the emotion is genuine. It is laced with a genuine and abiding brotherly love for one whom I have come to value and respect after years of friendship. I pray without ceasing that you find the greater answers that all of humanity is desperate for.
They are there for the plucking, and they only cost you your life...
I knew the standard ID
I knew the standard ID arguments would come out, but I never expected them so quickly.
This shouldn't surprize you since I mentioned in a few places that I believe that scientific theories must in large part be filtered through these greater questions of "beginnings". The naturalist/empiricist prepositions will boil down to how they try to explain these greater questions, and they have offered no reasonable explanation for the most basic questions, such as "I think, therefore I am". Or, ex nihilo nihil fit...
If the scientific theories that rely on naturalism as their dogma defy the most basic logic and reason that we adhere to as the core of our intellect, then they should be looked on with suspicion. It boils down to the battle of a priori statements, as we have both illuded to or implicitly stated. When this is the case, we must take an honest look at the statements and see which is a more reasonable lense to interpret data through.
The naturalistic presuppositions dictate that:
(A) The cosmos came to being through the act of no outside, transcendent and (especially) intelligent cause. The need for this cause is seldom argued against these days due to the scientific observations of the last century or so. So, the bedrock of naturalist science is that either the universe sprang into existence from truly nothing, or that the universe is self-existent despite its pinpoint beginning in a singularity, or that the universe is caused by some other cause such as a mythological universe factory.
The first and second explanations defy all logic and reason. They defy every observable and logically sound thought that can be applied to them. They are a willful suppression of what we know as inherently true of the possible and impossible. The last explanation merely pushes the "cause" back a step. To explain our observations of apparent design, they all rely on absolutely unscientific "just-so" explanations.
(B) Life sprang forth by chance from a chemical concoction when base chemicals coincidentally combined into proteins that coincidentally combined into DNA that coincidentally formed a literal alphebet that carries literal information. This too relies on "just-so" theories in an effort to side-step the apparent design in the apparent information. It ignores the Principle of Uniformity that good science is based on, in that it requires conditions on Earth that we have no evidence ever existed, and which would have killed any life that may per-chance have formed in the first place. It is a process that scientists are presently trying to recreate in the lab to no avail. It is a statistical impossibility based on the actions of something that has no power whatsoever-- chance.
The naturalistic a priori statements claim repeatedly, in several contexts that nothing does something miraculous. The ID/Christian/Theist a priori statements claim that something did something, and further that Someone capable of the miraculous performed the miraculous. It is an intelectually dishonest statement that naturalists do not believe in the miraculous. The truth is that they believe in the impossibly miraculous by dismissing a sufficient cause to the miraculous that we see inherent in our life.
In this philosophical diatribe, I'll leave it up to each reader to decide which set of a priori statements seem more plausable, and more congruent with observation to earn the right as "filter" by which we screen the data.
You're applying the filter of naturalism by interpreting "evolutionary time" into the data presented. Isn't this a circular argument? Evolution is true because we see "evolutionary time". Evolutionary time happened because evolution is true. This argument is making the assertion that similarity means "kinship" and that one came from the last, which came from the previous... I am unconvinced, especially considering that it is an extension of the presupposition that nothing did something miraculous.
You state that the fossil record is devoid of transitional evidence.
For the record, I did not make that statement that I can recall. I sincerely do question any specimen that is offered as a transition fossil. I question the assertion because any claim for a transitional fossil is a forensic interpretation. It is jumping to the conclusion that similarity is evolution, as mentioned above. What I did do was question where all of the needed transition fossils are?
I am said to be quote-mining when I go back to the statements of the authorities that I am asked to trust. Classic Darwinism calls for a steady "stream" of transition fossils if it is true. During the long expanse of "evolutionary time" life has been steadily evolving. Therefore, we should be seeing transitional fossils all over the place. But we don't. We see a very few fossils that some interpret as transitional. Classic Darwinism is applying the "god-of-the-gaps" in its science.
Yes, Darwin lived 100 years ago. The gaps are still there. Evolution still relies on natural selection and an explanse of time with life evolving steadily, which should be producing an incredible amount of transitional evidence. The fossil record still doesn't reflect this.
That's why we have "punctuated equellibrium" on the scene now, and the intense infighting within the evolution camps. At least some of these scientists that you refer to, who have spent their lives persuing knowledge, recognize the failure in classic evolution. They recognize the bare shelves of the fossil record. And the evolution of sudden transition is a reliance on the miraculous, yet fails in the same way as mentioned above. They have robbed their miracles of that which can perform the miraculous.
That's why I don't feel such a need to break down species as you ask that I do. I'm sorry. I am not interpreting data through the "evolutionary time" constraint that you claim is apparent. I am not inferring that similarity equals descent. Just as I see apparent design in every facet of existence, I see that the design contains similarities.
Now, I know that this is not exactly the response that you had hoped for. I know that you may even see this as a cop-out. I can in all honesty say that this is not the intent. I am trying to get you to go back to the very foundations of how we should judge what we are presented, most especially on subjects of data that are beyond our ability to observe directly. Test the presuppositions that are offered you against that which you have at your disposal, dogg. Does the worldview that seeks to answer these greater questions for you stand up to scrutiny at the most basic level?
Common sense should be based on sound reason and logic. Naturalism fails miserably. Neither of us can discard or ignore the miraculous we see in life, the universe and everything else. Ask yourself what greater there is to explain it. When facing these types of data, filter it through that which gives the greatest reasonable answer to the miraculous we see in all of this.
I applaud you in your honesty. We are all desperate for the answers to the greater questions. It is sad that many or most rely solely on that which can't answer them and reject that which can.
I've said from the start of my time in this blog-site that I am not seeking to prove God. I would be sadly disappointed in my attempts if that were the case. I do, however, hope to show Him as a reasonable response to what we observe. He is. And He can be known.
I pray that you will try to, because He can't be known from without. One must stop suppressing that which is evident. And that takes a conscious decision to do so. Romans 1 states that God can be known by that which is created. In other words, existence points to Him. And it does, if one stops willfully suppressing that truth.
Again, I hope that this does not come across as cop-out laced with appeal to emotion. I've tried to explain the filter by which I judge the data which is presented as evidence. Aside from that, the emotion is genuine. It is laced with a genuine and abiding brotherly love for one whom I have come to value and respect after years of friendship. I pray without ceasing that you find the greater answers that all of humanity is desperate for.
They are there for the plucking, and they only cost you your life...
:)
God bless you, bro...