My molecules are doing just fine. Thank you.
1 Like
That would be due to modern science keeping the universe going, then. How can I ever repay it?
Modern medicine keeps my molecules in proper balance as time goes by and entropy increases. Some day my molecules will be reused in hopefully a meaningful way.
Regarding repayment, you owe the Sun nothing for providing the energy necessary to sustain your life. Live Long and Prosper. (An ancient Vulcan greeting from the 1960ās)
Then what you said was very unclearly stated.
āIf much of that randomness is, ontologically, the result of divine choice (which is only what traditional theology has always said), then it is Godās process. Whereas if that randomness is successfully reduced to laws of nature, then they are Godās laws. The only grounds for denial of his necessity are either arbitrarily defining ānaturalā in a secular way, or resorting to theological arguments that God wouldnāt do certain things.ā
The first sentence included god as a conditional. But the second didnāt, and thus my confusion. Iām also not sure that you donāt intend the third sentence as a proof of Godās necessity.
What evidence has been given that they donāt? You are making the positive claim, and I think the greater burden is on you.
If you will look, Iāve already said, at the very start, that we canāt claim that god is not necessary for evolution, merely that we have no evidence that he is. Who are you arguing with?
So you are saying all the theory of evolution has going for it is that you cannot prove it is false? Lets modify my claim. There is no evidence that evolutionary mechanisms can generate FI.
Start with our ability to email abstract thought to each other. Only known generator is the claim if you know of another one I look forward to your model that can build it.
The second sentence is covered by the conditional of the first, as per usual grammatical usage. The third explains how one must opt for the naturalistic worldview, rather than evidence, to deny Godās involvement.
If I take your agnostic stance seriously, then Iām making a positive claim against an absence of claim. You donāt know if laws are necessary (there goes necessity), and chance means āof unknown cause.ā Seems like Iām the only runner, so Iāve no need to stretch myself.
On the other hand, if youāre asserting something more positive, such as "Natural causes account for all (ānaturalā meaning chance and necessity apart from God,) then you have made equally positive claims - and you are just as responsible to give evidence that such things as chance and necessity, rather than divine governance, exist.
I donāt think thatās clear as all, hence my confusion. I agree that if you assume god is involved in everything, then god is indeed involved in everything, QED. The question is whether we have any reason to make that assumption.
Again, I am not denying Godās involvement. Iām just saying that we have no reason to assume Godās involvement. (I do have reasons for denying Godās involvement, but they are not relevant to evolutionary biology. They have to do with positive reasons for supposing that God does not exist.)
How is it you canāt see, from the beginning up to the present, that I am not?
That seems too limiting.
Are you really suggesting that a bacterium has a mind?
No, but bacteria are not the ultimate cause of anything.
Are you saying that you havenāt proven it false? If not, how can you say that evolution canāt explain the emergence of FI?
That would require you to plant the goal posts at some point and define what FI is and the criteria for determining if FI has increased.
DNA molecules are not email.
There is a long and thorough discussion of generating MI and FI here:
One of the truths here at Peaceful Science is that a sincere man can ve a good scientist (without reverting to God like the alchemists of old)ā¦
ā¦ while still adopting a Theological Stance that claims God us necessary to all of what Science studies!
2 Likes