Replies

Thank you for your exhaustive reply!

You asked which panspermia/cosmic ancestry objections are indistinguishable from Intelligent Design objections. There are many examples on the panspermia.org link above - but here is an example from their FAQ/RAQ:

Q. Why is a new understanding of evolution necessary? Isn't the existing theory of evolution satisfactory?

A. The theory that more organized forms of life on Earth evolved from less organized forms over about four billion years is well-established. But new genes are necessary for this process. The theory that new genes arise by random mutation of old genes and natural selection is not established. The result of every known mutation is either neutral or deleterious, except when the disabling of a gene is advantageous. It is possible that "gene duplication" followed by other mutations could have occasionally produced a closely related new gene with a function very similar to the original one. But a convincing account of even one wholly new gene with an unrelated specific new function, arising from mutations of an existing gene, or assembled from random strands of nucleotides, has not been given.

Q. What is the new understanding of evolution that comes with Cosmic Ancestry?

A. It is that new genes, already wholly composed, are installed into the genomes of species to enable evolution to advance.

Q. Doesn't the fossil record indicate that the first cells on Earth evolved after a long, gradual process that started with nonliving chemicals?

A. No. The oldest rocks that are capable of containing evidence of life (the rocks whose information hasn't been erased by melting or otherwise) contain evidence that the metabolism of bacterial cells was already under way. The best guess to make from that clue is that bacterial life — whole cells — were present on Earth from day one. (The standard prebiotic soup theory is now compelled to say that the first cells evolved from nonliving chemicals very quickly.)

You continued:

But I have no problem moving along with that: show me evidence of your uncharacterized intelligence.

That’s a tall order for a reply post and has been addressed already on myriad threads. In a general category, I would call it geometric physics (dimensionality, forms, etc.). More specific to life v. non-life/death in nature: information (successful communication), autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence. If you care to specify which area interests you the most, I’ll be glad to gather up information and post it later this evening. I have to be gone this afternoon again.

I'm not sure what you mean to say here, but "intelligence" is by definition a personified concept. Below you seem to think that when I use the term "entity" I mean "corporeal" but, if so, that would be incorrect. I'm not at all confused about the terms.

I do not doubt that in your worldview, intelligence is personified.

I do not limit "all that there is" to space/time.

That is very, very good to know!

So what? We aren't talking about what "most of us would say" but rather of what reality is.

Then by all means, please give us your definition of reality!

The rest of your post seems to “cut” between objectivism and relativism. I am not at all a relativist:

Relativism

Relativism is the view that the meaning and value of human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute reference. Relativists claim that humans understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of, for example, their historical and cultural context. Philosophers identify many different kinds of relativism depending upon which classes of beliefs allegedly depend upon what.

The absolute reference for meaning and value of human beliefs is God Himself.

The objective truth is the same for both classes you've identified. That's why it's the objective truth. It's very neat, though, how you play this little trick all the time of making objectivity subjective, but it's not.

Objectivity in the sense that any mortal wisdom can conjure is clearly, in my view, subjective. Man can only think and see in four dimensions. His sense of time is limited to a light cone at its best. He has neither absolute precognition nor retrocognition – nor can he sense remotely. He cannot read the mind of another being or share the physical senses of another being. Therefore, anything a man imagines is relative per se.

But the question at hand does not regard what God is to you. The question regards what, if anything, God is.

God is unknowable in His fullness. We who inhabit space/time can only receive whatever revelations of Himself He allows. These revelations are the Scriptures and the indwelling Spirit. To one who does not have the Spirit, the Scriptures are merely text on paper – but to those who have the indwelling Spirit, the Word of God is alive and is Jesus Christ. The Scriptures become alive within us. This is not “knowledge” that can be obtained empirically or by observation. One either has “ears to hear” or he does not. We are not created equal in the spiritual sense.

To be blunt, truth is not contingent on your opinion. So, if this is actually meant to present an argument for the existence of God, why don't you try presenting an argument to support the premises, rather than informing me of your feelings.

My observation that three things in space/time (unreasonable effectiveness of math, the fact of the beginning, information in life) - scream that God is to me was not offered as “truth”. Objective Truth can only be received as a revelation from God. I was indeed sharing my views for anyone interested. You are not interested. That's fine with me!