I see that the de facto "Intelligent Design" website Uncommon Descent have started the new year off by promoting their standard false dichotomy whereby they paradigmatically and habitually perceive evolution and intelligent design as mutually excluding. Reading their website I have frequently come across the conception that it's a simple choice between "natural forces" and "intelligent design" . I read that as an incoherent "God vs nature" conception of creation. That makes no sense to me as a Christian: Nature has no natural or logical necessity to exist and therefore it is in fact a most unnatural thing, an object requiring miraculous creation by God. If then nature is itself supernatural in this sense, who knows what it is divinely provisioned to do.
See here for UD's polarised paradigm:
Evolution or Intelligent design: On which side is the evidence? – Uncommon Descent
It ought to be clear to them that if Evolution, as conventionally understood, is to work then itself demands a large level of initial information* that raises the question of Intelligent Design.
See:
Quantum Non-Linearity: Evolution by (Naked) Chance? (quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com)
Quantum Non-Linearity: Evolution (quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com)
...and in particular:
None of this necessarily implies a tribal commitment to conventional evolutionary theory as an explanation of natural history.
Footnote
* This initial information becomes apparent in this conditional probability equation:
Prob of evolution = Prob ( Evolution | Physical Regime )
The absolute probability of evolution is all but zero even in a cosmos of our size. Therefore, it follows that if conventional evolution has occurred the information it needs must be found in the conditions I've labeled above as "physical regime".
ADDENDUM 7/02/2023
In a blog post dated 23 January and titled Did Simulating “Cosmic Evolution” Get Evolutionists Closer to the Origin of Life? Ken Ham discusses the relevance of research into whether the amino acid building blocks of life came from space. In his post I found that I didn't strongly disagree with Ken on anything except when he finished on this note:
Life in all its incredible diversity, from microscopic bacteria and fungi to plants to animals to mankind, was created by God just 6,000 years ago. Those who reject God will go to all sorts of lengths to try to prove life arose by natural processes.
That's classic dualism: It forgets that those so-called "natural processes" were created by God himself and not an incompetent demiurge. Therefore, they are far from natural, and we shouldn't take it for granted that they are not capable of working miracles. What Ken doesn't understand is that the secular project is engaged in a futile attempt to show that the information content of the cosmos has no surprisal value at all and that the cosmos originates from an information base of zero. Now, that is a mathematically impossible task! If Ken understood that he need no longer worry about what those secularists are going to come up with: Whatever they come up with will effectively be some form of creation or other in that some blend of initial information and processing time has to be an assumed starting point.
No comments:
Post a Comment