Chance v. Design Part 4 (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 04:39 (5423 days ago) @ dhw

dhw, - Let me try in small chunks... I have a personality profile that works with ideas in ways that boggle other types and I *always* forget that people can't read my mind. (INTJ if you're familiar with meyers-briggs personality types.) When I say boggle, my mind finds connections fast and tends to leap without looking. Which can both be a great... and a detrimental asset, and you can see it anytime I seem to get excited. - The most heated debates I've had with atheists was over this idea we're wrestling with, in one instance I had a physicist (Michael Gray) get immediately hostile in alt.atheism a couple summers ago, what followed ended up being a flame war that I just left. (Whether or not he was who he claimed he was is not determinable.) - What I suggested was that the law of excluded middle may not hold on the creator question. Like I said before, it is possible that every idea man ever had about God was wrong except that he exists. So lets explore an extreme case. - "And God said, "Let there be light..."" - The beginning of our observable universe. The creator smiles and steps back. - And then that's it. He might watch, he might not care at all. He built the computer algorithm, if you will, and from a set of ultra-simple rules complexity arose, just like in the "Game of life." - In this case, it is both by design, and by random chance. The universe was designed, but everything else simply forms according to natural and random processes. - Is this better? - This is an example of how I would say that a deist could still thank a creator for reason... just not in the very personal way that he/she may mean it. And why I also say that the distinction between abiogenesis/design would also be false--in this example too, we cannot tell the difference between the supernatural and natural. - 
--Matt S.