Chance v. Design Part 4 (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 09:00 (5443 days ago) @ xeno6696

PART TWO - You wrote that abiogenesis literally translated means "life from nonlife"...This event clearly happened. - Yes indeed. We have a problem of definition here, though, because this discussion has been going on almost since the forum opened, and I have taken certain things for granted. So let me spell out what I mean: in order to believe in a creator, you must reject the theory that life can spring spontaneously from nonlife without the intervention of any outside intelligence. And the fact is that if scientists do eventually succeed in producing life from nonlife, it still won't tell us whether life was designed or not, since they are intelligent people working in laboratories conducting conscious experiments. I think my definition of the theory is a fair one, but it has caused confusion in the past. The context here was my response to your claim that "in order to argue for a creator, you have to be able to define its limits." I queried this, and listed what I regarded as prerequisites for belief in a creator. My argument was in fact self-evident: to believe in a designer, you have to believe in design. This means you have to reject a theory that rejects design. As for gods "that are treated simply as psychological states of human consciousness", they are not creators or designers. And I would challenge you to find a single practising Jew or Christian who worships a God that he thinks was NOT responsible for the creation of life. - Matt: I pointed out to Turell that his dismissal (and your own) of deism...
Matt: Your dismissal of deism has to be based on something that allows you to say it is false. - In my previous post, I wrote: "But personally, like yourself, I am far more inclined to believe that if there is a creator, he/she/it would have devised the mechanism and then watched it work out its own paths (= deism) along the lines of Rosenhouse's algorithms."
I don't see how I could have expressed myself more clearly, and am at a loss as to why you think I have dismissed deism. On the contrary, given the world around us, I find it one of the most plausible forms of religious faith. - This will be my last post for a couple of weeks, as my wife and I are off to France on holiday. I shall look forward to doing battle with you when I return, though it would be nice to explore the common ground as well!