As to this discussion, various book length topics have been brought up, which is good, yet they will take a lot of dialogue and so on to get into. I should probably get into how improbable the laws of biology and physics are in their being structured to favor life sometime, to actually have a look at the argument that you are rejecting. That way you might see that our pot luck dinner could very easily have been some unlucky poison given any number of circumstances. It's a little different than, "...a bunch of variables got mixed together, and what happened happened." Anyone interested can read Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in Nature, by Michael Denton, because I may not get to many things that should be written on.
In the discoveries of science the harmony of the spheres is also now the harmony of life. And as the eerie illumination of science penetrates ever more deeply into the order of nature, the cosmos appears increasingly to be a vast system finely tuned to generate life and organisms of biology very similar, perhaps identical, to ourselves. All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology——that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its final goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact.
Four centuries after the scientific revolution apparently destroyed irretrievably man’s special place in the universe, banished Aristotle, and rendered teleological speculation obsolete, the relentless stream of discovery has turned dramatically in favor of teleology and design, and the doctrine of the microcosm is reborn. As I hope the evidence presented in this book has shown, science, which has been for centuries the great ally of atheism and skepticism, has become at last, in these final days of the second millennium, what Newton and many of its early advocates had so fervently ished—the “defender of the anthropocentric faith.”
(Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology
Reveal Purpose in the Universe
By Michael Denton :389)
Unfortunately, that is the teleological conclusion sans the hundreds of pages of evidence. But moving on anyway....
This morning David said,
"Why does man leap to the coclusion that whatever controls everything else that you cannot control by your own choices is anything like man?"
We know from experience that a creator leaves their imprint on that which they create. Even if they do not want to they do, we know from experience that there are tell tale signs of design. Therefore it is not much of a "leap" to note that the Creator has left evidence or artifacts as to what they are like and given the apparent anthroprocentric nature of Nature it may be that their likeness is most likely to be found in man. Of course, the Bible states this directly. I've noticed that for some lack of reason mentioning the Bible seems to make the New Man want to run around screaming his head off. Or it seems to result in a conditioned sort of response of some type based on negative emotional conditioning.
I would note that in some of your writings you have relied on a view of science as ever advancing against religion. That sort of pattern is historically inaccurate. You also seem to be including all sorts of knowledge in "science." It is as if you think that all true knowledge or understanding of the natural world has come through science. That is false. You also invoke the flat earth and so on, as if scientists came to the conclusion that the earth is round and with steely eyed determination had to battle the religious people of their day. That is false. These sort of memes that seem to be lurking in the background of your position need to be corrected or at least stirred. Generally, the opposition of religion and science that American professors often set up and Hitler's professors appealed to in similar ways is false.
For instance, just because Galileo came into a disagreement with clergy does not mean he agreed with Naturalism.
"The holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word."
Galileo Galilei, Laws of Dynamics,
astronomical confirmation of the heliocentric system
(The Wonder of the World: A Journey from
Modern Science to the Mind of God
by Roy Abraham Varghese :103)
I am reminded of the way that some Leftist atheists and agnostics distort the writings of the Founders based on their disagreements with clergy as well. It seems to me that someone could come along later and just as easily distort my entire philosophy by focusing on an attack on televangelists or prissy Christians by me. Then they would also argue something about how, "Well, almost everyone in America in 2005 were Christians and he was just following along and didn't know any better, a victim of his times. So as you can see as he called most preachers 'pansies' he would obviously agree with modern agnosticism." These types of arguments are just as incorrect when applied to the Founders. They were not just the helpless victims of their times and the supposed ignorance of such times. They knew of essentially all the same philosophies that surround us today. It is their type of philosophy that is still sound, timeless and yet timely because it is based on the metaphysical, the spiritual by another name. That does not change with time. It ought to also be noted that the advancing knowledge of the physical has come to support their views. It seems that those who have a sound and systematic knowledge of the metaphysical often have timeless and timely views on things that are sometimes confirmed later as knowledge of the physical advances.
The Founders wrote anti-evolutionist and so anti-fascist ideas into our founding documents, as their focus was metaphysical over of physical. For instance, the Republic is based on a belief in elected representation over hereditary leadership through the consent of the governed over monarchy, separation of powers over consolidation and republicanism over democracy. The foundational belief which laid out the end that government was to be a means to was a belief in theistic origins and consequent transcendent self-evident truths, evident in the Self itself. The metaphysical focus on a text and blueprint for the nation is the same type of focus that overlooks nationalism based on tribe and physical characteristics and instead focuses on ideas, ideas come to be patterns of ideas such as "the American dream."
They based their system on text, with the text being designed to be able to adapt to the needs of the body politic. Of course, unfortunately the textual degenerates of the Judiciary have now begun rule based on their own judicial diktats and their mutations are quite random. Those who agree with their sort of textually degenerate philosophy, the evolutionists, have developed quite an alliance with them. Perhaps they can come together to throw the Constitution on the floor and stomp on it to see what text Nature selects and supposedly writes for them next. Yet no, instead the existentialist will write whatever they will. For they still believe in choice and the will, although they have no basis to do so.
"The concept of a design suggests that someone had this particular outcome in mind. It seems to me the other way around, that something was set in motion and this is just what happened."
It seems to me the other way around. Did you have that particular sentence in mind and then think through your brain to set a chain of events in motion or was it just what happened to happen? That sentence is, after all, far less complex and specified than the laws of Nature. It is not clear why you would have people read it as if it is an artifact of your mind, as you will not read the laws of Nature as an artifact of the Mind of God. That is a matter of your will, not how the evidence actually reads.
"I don't think there was any planning. (If there was, the planner has a sick sense of humor and/or a terrible aesthetic. He needs an episode of Queer Eye for the Onmipotent."
Hmmm....it is probably good that this paragraph is coming to an end. Do you want to go into such topics? Why do you feel that self-defined Gays© have a higher aesthetic sense? Do they? They have a lot of influence in the fashion world. There the Queer Eye seems to want to see the feminine starve, just how queer is the Queer Eye? Is its effete aesthetic sense better or must it constantly look in the mirror, always seeking and never finding?
"Did someone create the variables. Did someone come up with the law of Gravity, and Inertia, and that you never find a parking spot when you are late for a meeting? Did someone invent them. I don't know. Does it matter? I can't see why. Does its presence or abscence excuse us from behaving ethically? I don't believe so."
The writing in this paragraph seems appropriate.
"I don't think...."
"I don't know."
"I can't see...."
"I don't believe..."
It seems I can take you at your words.
There is a pattern of thought that might be drawn out once you begin to write what you do think you are thinking. I think there might be a thought pattern to it.
So ends that paragraph....
At another point you said,
"This designer you speak of, who created DNA and the human brain, and rainbows... trying to prove its existence by comparing it with what humans are capable of... I call it poor logic, and don't you call it blaspheming?"
I'm curious, what did you think you were thinking when you brought up blasphemy there?