" Oh. Okay. I get it: You are suggesting that your thinking is totally unhinged, and you like it that way. :^)
Good grief, that's not something I'd brag about.... "
Speaker for rocks, and sand, apples and shadows, rainbows and butterflies. It's a fine madness.
"The word "dogmatic" was used to make the distinction that some people are using Darwin's theory as a license to trespass beyond the domain of science. To the extent of the disconnect from the scientific method, such findings must be classified as [philosophical] "dogmas." Especially to the degree in which they are held as "sacrosanct" — i.e., NO challenge to them can be allowed in principle — such findings are not science."
Nice strawman. That's why I rejected the premise.
"To you, there is no real distinction to be made between the biochemistry and the message it bears. [Whatever "message" is there, it boils down to the known laws of physics and nothing else.]"
From a scientific viewpoint, one can have no other opinion.
As a poet, I can also see that there is an image, like the images that are made by making collages of thousands of pictures, each becoming a picture element of the larger image, that is imposed upon the whole of humanity. An image not visible within just one individual, but hinted at in that individual's unlimited potential.
"... thus I conclude that you believe the complete description of reality is to be achieved, composed, and described part-by-part, step-by-step, from the ground up in a process that has no evident "rule" to it from your perspective."
Yes, one can describe reality that way. One must describe reality that way.
"It just "happens." What to make of it???? If it's the result of a blind or random process, what sense could possibly be made of it in the first place?"
This is a diversion from science into something other than science. I can follow along. But remember, this thread was posted contingent on the contention that Creationism is equal to science, and it is clearly a different subject entirely.
Well, I do believe that life happens. When I consider the immense scope of all of Creation, I cannot accept that life could exist only here on this tiny mudball.
There must be other mansions. What life is like there, I have no idea. But I am confident that if they are also God's creatures, they will be curious.
Hopefully, it's a madness that is not easily communicable. :^)
You classified one of my remarks as "a strawman argument." But you never explained why it was a "strawman." We have no information aqbout how you define "strawman," nor any inkling about what kind of evidence it would take to substantiate your finding. Indeed, if your thinking is "unhinged," that must mean that you have no principle, no criterion, by means of which judgments of fact of this kind can be adjudicated. And that would mean you have no way to verify the existence of a strawman in the first place.
You wrote: "But remember, this thread was posted contingent on the contention that Creationism is equal to science, and it is clearly a different subject entirely."
I don't recall any claim on this thread that Creationism is "equal" to science. But neither do they live in a condition of complete divorce.
Or so it seems to me, FWIW.
Straighten out your foundational premises, dear NicknamedBob; and then maybe then you can stop trying to make sense of an "unhinged" universe, so to recognize that the universe is very "hinged," indeed.
And we are its "parts" and "participants."