Posted on 03/13/2004 11:53:26 AM PST by js1138
I'm not going to sit back and not comment when I think someone has made an error. What I call trolling doing nothing else.
Well, this is where, by simple deduction, most people would beg to differ. In every case where we are able to observe an artifact we assume it is the result of intelligence acting upon the substances necessary to form the artifact. We don't even have to see a hammer in action to understand that it is an object of intelligent design.
As we've been able to form tools of our own to look deeper into the substance of things, we not only find something more complex than a hammer, but we see that it is dynamic, and that is is carrying out functions that have a purpose and yet are completely outside of our control.
I would be surprised and alarmed if I ever saw a hammer pick itself up and start doing its designed task without seeing a human hold it. Yet we see many functions carrying on about us without the aid of our consciousness or observation.
Can you understand why it would be easy to deduce that some kind of intelligence underlies the existence and dynamism in our universe?
So give a specific example, and tell us why we shouldn't study it to see if it can be attributed to ongoing processes.
Why would I want to do a thing like that? After all, the entire universe IS attributed to ongoing processes. It IS the object and subject of scientific study. It exhibits ongoing processes that make sense. Sense implies intelligence, and intelligence implies design.
We may study any object we wish. In the end we will see dynamic processes (even with inanimate substances) that maintain a good many of the attributes of both intelligence and design.
But what I'd really like to see is an example of data and processes organizing themselves without guiding principles or laws or intelligence or design. If you can cite an example of this I would like to know about it.
How about a snowflake?
They're pretty to look at, but they will never arrange themselves into a snowman.
I agree. Without a solid foundation, the harder concepts are far more difficult to grasp. For example; a detailed description of FFTs and their use in narrowband SETI
Science has identified guiding principles in association with the formation of a snowflake. Symmetry is evidence of design. The atomic particles associated with a snowflake maintain consistency. All of these things are apprehended BY intelligence and they exhibit attributes that IMPLY intelligence. Otherwise we would not be able to distinguish a snowflake from a drop of rain.
If, from that point, one would derive the attribute of consciousness from the snowflake itself, he would be engaging in superstition. But it is not unreasonable to infer that many of the attributes of personhood are among those needed to design and build a snowflake.
As far as I know it doesn't. That's why I assume it was intelligently designed.
Try to live sinlessly.
The collection, interpretation and practical application of data are at the foundation of science. As soon as one is born with reason and senses he/she has a solid foundation for the collection and interpretation of data simply by virtue of sensory perception. So, in a sense, everyone is a scientist.
Although perhaps unable to express itself, a human gains an awareness that such a thing as "personhood" exists (I would dare predict) at a much earlier age than they gain an awareness of such concepts as "nothingness," "randomness", or "chance." Even without direct awareness (instincts), the sensory perception of an infant is engaged in an incredible amount of data gathering, organization, and yes, even assumptions based on experience.
Why do I bring all this up? To show that it is not unreasonable to assume that intelligence and design permeate the universe, and that personhood truly exists. Anything that exists is wide open for scientific inquiry, even those things we do not understand. Dogmatic evolutionists err when they stifle open discussion of any part of the universe. They demonstrate less an interest in science than in their vested dogmatism and egos.
Without a solid foundation, ANY concept is difficult to grasp.
I know of none, and would not expect to see any, because these processes operate with and demonstrate the attributes of intelligent design.
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.