The eyeball as testimony to evolution?

To be more precise, an omnipotent deity could choose to create using a method producing nested hierarchies, such as by an evolutionary process. A deity creating using a more intervention-style approach, as championed by much of ID and YEC, would not be expected to produce the nested hierarchies.

empty phrase as it is a category error. Faith is based on reason. Reason can exist without faith, but faith can not exist without reason.

Reason depends on faith as well. In reasoning, you are trusting in the reliability of the standards you use for deciding what is reasonable. They are mutually interdependent.


Don’t you have to have faith in your reasoning? You presume, by faith, that it is valid. Maybe that reasoning seems to work is just an illusion. (Try and prove that reason is reasonable, or, using logic, that logic is legit. :grin:)


Nowhere did I say that.

What I am talking about is what we would expect to see if God did not use evolution. If God used evolution in the same way that all the rest of nature operates then I would expect to see a nested hierarchy.

isn’t logic like math axiomatic, e.g. based on agreed definitions?

we violate a lot of things and we do not know if it is good. To violate the law does not qualify for being powerful, nor for being all knowing because it tends to remove one from the gene pool.

why would an all powerful deity need to not reuse a single design, and if he had to, why would he need to not limit it to a nested hierarchy and why would he do things that I can not see the reason for if he is all knowing? He may be all knowing, but shouldn’t I know better :slight_smile:

Logic is based on agreed upon rules and premises. The idea is that if we both agree that the premises and rules of logic are true then the conclusion is valid.

Then bacteria must all be bad because they participate in swapping DNA between species all of the time.

Your position is that God, for some unknown reason, created life so that it exactly mimics what we would expect from evolution. It’s like saying we should throw out all forensic evidence at a crime scene because God could have planted all of the DNA and fingerprints. You are calling for the abandonment of all logic and reason.

Your position is that God for some unknown reason could not create the process of evolution. Its like saying that if he would have created evolution he would be an idiot because look at the outcome - it produces idiots :slight_smile: An all powerful God would not create a process that comes up with something as stupid as humans.

It’s like looking at evolution as a crime because it resulted in something like yourself. You are calling for the abandonment of all logic and reason :slight_smile:

There were - and still are - people so illiterate that they read the bible as telling them God is a bit like Yoda sitting by the riverbed making mud pie humans - and all the other species from scratch. Now it’s adequate to think like that if you are a child or haven’t made any intellectual progress, but if you have gone to university such thinking is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.

To fail to recognise that a law is a supernatural, e.g. metaphysical element is really embarrassing as a law is by definition not physical. It rules over the physical, thus is by definition supernatural. The problem for a human is to accept to be subject to the law - and always has been since Adam and Eve.

That is not my position. God could have very well created through evolution just as God brings rain through natural causes. Would you agree that evolution is just as natural as rainfall?

What I am saying is that parsimony favors evolution over separate creation and nearly all forms of intelligent design. When you have a known natural process capable of producing the observations you don’t throw it out in favor of a supernatural cause that exactly mimics the natural one. Again, I am talking about immediate causes.

1 Like

They are called physical laws for a reason.

No. Physical laws are the physical. Laws are just how we humans formalize our descriptions of how nature works.

1 Like

Th laws of physics are not physical laws as a law is not a physical, e.g. material element. It describes how the materials behave but that does not make them material. This is why the physical analysis of a sentence will never reveal it’s meaning.

Thanks for the explanation of Romanes.
The interesting thing in that context is, that with our psychical abilities we can generate immediate causality by interacting with the primary cause. To what extend this is possible for other life forms we do not know.

I’m not understanding. Are you saying that “meaning” is spiritual? Thanks.

what makes you think so :slight_smile:

1 Like

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought that this implied the analysis had a spiritual element. I am never sure where physical things would end. Sorry. I think I must have. It is not important. Thanks for the discourse.

I thought you were enjoyed my smiliy :slight_smile:

Is information a material element or an immaterial element? Its a bit along Lennox’s argument from semiotics, but in the end logic is metaphysics

Thanks. I found the video entertaining! But he gave no proof. A mathematician and a biochemist–would they not benefit from talking to a neuroscientist or psychiatrist? Same for a philosopher.

Don’t you think the laws of physics are observations in respect to integration with a view to potential? Yet, our chemical processes by which we make observations are easily disrupted by using the wrong chemicals.

I am a Christian by faith, so we wind up the same. However, I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate. Thanks

All I am saying is that there are serious problems with the “Physical laws need a law maker” argument. It conflates two very different definitions of the word “law”.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.