An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, July 16, 2018, 17:24 (727 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: This thread is called “An Alternative to Evolution”, but at least 50% of your argument relates to design versus chance, and that is not an alternative because many people believe in a designed evolution. Nobody is asking you to speculate on who or what the designer is.

Evolution=Random Chance
Design=Intentional, non-random
Literally any hypothesis against evolution will be design vs. chance. Of course at least 50% will design vs. chance.

DHW: Your method is separate creation. If there is a designer, he can choose any method he likes, but there is no experimental evidence to prove that prototypes can spring forth out of nothing.

My method is a designed language for genetic programming. My personal beliefs have little to do with this hypothesis. My hypothesis does not specify special creation, dabbling, or divine evolution, only a genetic programming language.

There are points in my hypothesis that can be falsified without overturning the entire hypothesis, such as the part about speciation. If some system is found that allows that, it will still be too complex for random chance.

dhw I have long since accepted the science without the religion. I am an agnostic largely because I recognize the scientific case for design but cannot accept the religion.

I am honestly amazed that you can maintain such unbalanced logic for so long, my friend. You deny random chance, recognize the science for design, recognize that with science we make inferences about things we can't see, yet can not fathom the same inferences made from scientific observations of design as to the nature of the Designer. Instead, you recognize design, at every level of existence that our science can observe, and choose to remain blind to the obvious inference that the designer is very, very real, and that much about Him(because in English we tend to refer to creatures we can't identify with masculine gender pronouns, and I do not know a suitable gender androgynous pronoun) can be learned and inferred through studying this amazing creation of His.

Seriously, and no offense to anyone, but who cares about religion? What does religion have to do with faith, or belief in something you can't see? Life and the Universe as we know it, from the black holes to the quarks, requires a designer. Seeing this grand design, as design, one can only conclude that this universe and all that is in it has been awe-inspiringly and beautifully crafted with what can only be qualified as love.

Budah, Allah, YHWH, Alien Builder Bob...whomever you believe did can infer much about their personality from the works of their 'mind' and 'hands'. As for me, Jehovah(YHWH) is my God. He knows this. So, I do not feel the need to disrupt the possibility of getting people to recognize design by bringing him into the discussion prematurely. Instead, I am focused on getting people to recognize and acknowledge that it WAS designed, setting aside the question of by whom for a separate discussion.

By the same token, recognizing that there is a designer allows us to ask questions from a different perspective. We can ask why something would be done a certain way, and follow logical chains to discover interplay between different design elements. We stop thinking of our Universe as a collection of random meaningless events and look for how everything fits together into a unified, harmonious whole.

Unfortunately, you can not fill a cup that is already full, and science's cup is full of Naturalism at the moment. How can you get them to pour out their cup, and refill it from a fresh perspective? The only way I know, the only way they will listen to, is to give it to them in cold, hard, indisputable facts. To lay it out logically in an airtight case how everything from the bottom up works as a unified whole. The complexity of any one system may be waved off as chance, but the complexity and interplay between everything in the Universe can hardly be waved off. It is a system, designed from the ground up, and while there is most assuredly a certain amount of randomness, the laws that govern all things are too complex and informationally rich to be anything but designed.

What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum