Intelligent Design

TJ “Can’t Muster up Enough Blind Faith”

Spread the love

Sorry TJ, then you will never be in good standing in the Darwinian cool kids club. All that follows is from tjguy’s comment to my prior post:

Tin says:

Just because something can be made by man does not mean that all occurrences in nature must have an intelligent origin.

As Barry says, sure, that is a good point. But likewise, it doesn’t mean that it does NOT have an intelligent origin in nature either.

And another huge difference between making diamonds and making DNA code is that we basically understand how diamonds are made. There is little dispute about this. The natural processes are fairly well understood and in fact, have been tested. And we actually copy the natural processes to make the diamonds which shows that those processes could actually make diamonds. We cannot verify that any particular diamond was actually created by those processes because we didn’t see it and we cannot recreate those conditions in the ground, but based on our knowledge and experimentation, we can fairly well justified to assume they were created by those processes.

Yes, you claim to understand the natural processes by which life came into existence, complete with machines, overlapping codes, information processing systems, proteins, enzymes, software, and volumes of information.

What we cannot do is to actually copy those processes and and test them to see if they can actually do what you claim.
We cannot verify the claim or really even test it. I believe too that we have good reasons not to question your claims as well. Anyway, in the end, it remains in the realm of belief because you cannot show by experiment even that it could possibly have happened like you claim, let alone that it actually did happen like you claim.

When dealing with unrepeatable, unverifiable, and unobservable history, we are both limited. We can see what is true now. At this point in time, we know of no process actually capable of producing the CSI we see in life, at least no process that can actually be verified.

We can show through experiments that your claims are highly unlikely, but if you still choose to stand true to the god of Chance, there is nothing we can do about that. You must determine your own beliefs and we must determine our own beliefs.

I just can’t muster up enough faith to believe that blind Chance is capable of producing what we see in life. The evidence for design is just too great to dismiss in my eyes. You are welcome to disagree with me/us and believe whatever you want, but don’t call it science because at this point, it is just belief – at best hypothesis – which we too have. But really, even the hypothesis you have is not testable so it is legitimate to question whether or not it can truly be called a scientific hypothesis as opposed to a belief.

2 Replies to “TJ “Can’t Muster up Enough Blind Faith”

  1. 1
    Dionisio says:

    Interesting post. Thank you.

    PS. Minor observation

    …we can fairly well justified to assume…

    …we can be fairly well justified to assume…

    …we are fairly well justified to assume…

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    Yes, you claim to understand the natural processes by which life came into existence, complete with machines, overlapping codes, information processing systems, proteins, enzymes, software, and volumes of information.

    We cannot verify the claim or really even test it. I believe too that we have good reasons not to question your claims as well.

    If someone claims to understand something, we can ask to describe it in general terms, and then in all details, step by step, upon request, so we can evaluate the idea theoretically, from a logical/algorithmic/procedural perspective.

    If they can’t produce such a theoretical description, then we can doubt they understand it well or maybe at all.

Leave a Reply