This post posits a clever and interesting analogy, but one that's similar to the "If we can put a man on the moon, then why can't we cure the common cold?" conundrum. Because, one class of problem doesn't necessaily shed light on the other class of problem.We have a long, recorded, oral, written, and present-day history and accounts of the making of primitive tools that are similar to "prehistoric" tools. We can go to South America or New Guinea and see similar tools being made today. We can, by studying the methods, even make the tools ourselves--I made an obsidian arrowhead in Boy Scouts using the same methods the Indians in Northern California used.But there is not similar empirical histories of how God "designed" life, just that he created various life forms to be fruitful and multiply, or propagate via seeds. There is a source that tells us this, the Bible, which is a collection of other works and in this, there is some validity of sources supporting other sources. But this doesn't make it true or factual.Primitive tools have been made that were indeed actual use of, or improvements on, stones, sticks, and shells that were given a particular shape through natural processes--a seashell can have a sharp edge and two of them can be used as tweezers. Obsidian shards are quite sharp.But, evolution does not say that a single living cell formed from non-living chemicals! There are many intermediary steps from one to the other, not to mention billions of years. Life did not just pop "into existence by chance" in one step in one nanosecond under the schema of cosmology or abiogenesis. If autocatalytic chemicals are put in reaction, they will form pulsating rectangles, circles, and triangles. Some will cycle between different geometric shapes. Does this imply a designer? Do intricate snowflakes imply unique designs by a Designer for each of the billions and billions of snowflakes that have fallen? Non-living molecules form three dimensional shapes based upon their environment and the charges of the consituent atoms. These are very intricate too--does this require a designer? The point is that these examples, which we can see and create ourselves in the case of new molecules, either don't require a designer at all, or design that is nowhere near the omnipotence of God.A philosophical problem with designers is "who designed the Designer?" For if the Designer's works must be seen to require a designer to understand or rationalize their complexity, then the Designer must be even more complex and thus require an even greater Designer.Since we supposedly have this huge brain capacity that we're not using but are learning how to use, I resist leaping to the easy conclusion that a god or God must have created x, y, z simply because at the present time, I don't understand how it could be otherwise. Historically, gods or God have been the explanation for many natural phenomena by people--until they found out otherwise. This trend continues today ...
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M