I'm a young earth creationist too, but I have to say, Captain Kirk kind of eviscerated at least part of your hypothesis in Star Trek V:
Posted on 05/17/2022 7:53:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
“is the universe itself a conscious intelligence?”
Well, your last question at least is immaterial as to the question of origins. Even if the universe is conscious, it still couldn’t create itself, so the point is moot.
Here is book written by a lawyer. He got involved by the mathematics and probability of evolution.
Good read. Mathematics intensive .
‘A Case Against Accident and Self-organization’
Dean L. Overman
“How can this be explained by any kind of compassionate intelligent design?”
How can this be explained by survival of the fittest?
There’s another version too, which is basically “aliens made us”, but that’s just moving the goalposts really.
I'm a young earth creationist too, but I have to say, Captain Kirk kind of eviscerated at least part of your hypothesis in Star Trek V:
“If the assertions of so-called Young Earth Creationists are to be credited as true, what are we to make of certain rock formations, or certain aspects of the fossil record?”
You’re conflating ID with biblical creationism. The two are actually very different.
ID makes its case on strictly scientific grounds and methodology.
If you are truly interested in finding out what ID is really about, I heartily recommend Stephen Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell”. I guarantee it will change your views.
Anytime and anywhere matter behaves in a functional, cohesive way there is evidence of intelligent design. The best evidence contradicting intelligent design is chaos and the absence of any ability to comprehend it.
Why assume that time has a beginning or an end? Why assume that God, or a conscious universe, needed to create itself or have a beginning in time. These are anthropomorphic concepts based on our own understanding of time. As spooky and mystical as it sounds, it may be that universal consciousness has always been, without beginning and without end.
Because intelligent design is that the same intelligence having autonomy tends to make mistakes
It’s just a parable to help you understand the age of the universe in light of the scientifically verified Twin Paradox.
Using your angle, why would God be stuck at the center of one single galaxy if He was the One Who created all of them?
According to Genesis, Adam was created by Gid fully grown. Hence the navel/belly button question.
Adam paraded that belly around for 930 years. He thus lived long enough to see the birth of Lamech, son of Methuselah and father of Noah, eight generations.
That’s a lot of little ones through the centuries asking why old Grandpa (to the nth power) Adam doesn’t have a belly button like we do. I would say that Adam was most likely created WITH a belly button. That way, rather than being pestered with questions from every little child that came his way, he was instead presented with good questions from well-informed older children and adults.
“why design 350, 000 different species of beetles? Wouldn’t 100, 000 be enough?”
God didn’t classify beetles into 350,000 groups, we did that. We could just as well have made 3.5 million subdivisions, or only 3,500, by choosing different criteria. Don’t blame God for things that man has done.
“Yes, it’s very easy to explain things which Science is still struggling to fully plumb when you can simply exclaim, “A Wizard did it!””
Yes that is a criticism of ID, but there’s also the possibility that the wizard does exist and it shouldn’t be automatically dismissed.
Reminds me of that old saying... “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean someone isn’t following you.”
Or rephrasing it, just because you hate the idea of something bigger than us having purposefully designed and created us, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
The reason a lot of mainstream scientists object to the “wizard” explanation is because they claim that it stops science from further exploration.
But that’s absolutely not what IDers want. They actually want more scientific explorations that would prove or disprove one or the other world view or something completely novel.
In reality it is the mainstream scientists who want to limit research by excluding the possibility of ID from their research.
It’s a bit like the warmists calling anyone who doesn’t toe their line deniers and forbidding any research that would disprove their hypothesis.
“I just think it is reasonable to believe that the way things are is not as the Creator intended them to be.”
That rules out a creator’s omnipotence then.
“Well, you have the same problem with God. Who created God?”
No, that’s a misconception. A god that is created is not a “big G God”, but a “little g god”. The theistic conception of divinity requires the divinity to be uncreated and eternal, or it is not a divinity at all.
If you want to talk about gods that need to be created, you should seek out some polytheistic pagans to debate that with.
“For those who don’t know, there is a non-religious version of Intelligent Design.”
ID is not grounded on or invokes religion. They make their case strictly on scientific grounds and methodology.
If you’re curious how they do it, I recommend “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer.
“But that’s absolutely not what IDers want. They actually want more scientific explorations that would prove or disprove one or the other world view or something completely novel.”
Why would a scientific explanation of something supernatural be necessary?
Do you believe, as I do, that Holy Scripture is inerrant?
If so, do you believe, as I do, that the six days during which God created creation were consecutive days of normal length, i.e., a time span of about 144 hours?
It is probably obvious that I do not subscribe to the theory of theistic evolution.
“The best evidence contradicting intelligent design is chaos and the absence of any ability to comprehend it.”
Except we do have some ability to comprehend it. We can write a simple formula to predict brownian motion, which is chaotic, but still predictable. We have constructed chaos theory and delineated the mathematics of perturbations in complex systems, even if the math gets too difficult for us to solve beyond very simple models. So even chaos seems to operate based on certain rules, and we have some ability to discern and understand those rules, just not completely.
“Why would a scientific explanation of something supernatural be necessary?”
Because maybe it isn’t supernatural or though it may appear supernatural to our limited senses and capabilities it does exist. Maybe that entity is as supernatural and magical to us as we are to an amoeba.
An amoeba has no clue we exist nor can it even conceptualize us, but we exist, don’t we?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.