To share my own best judgment with others on the OP question.
You should be saying...phew....good..... at least it is nothing sinister intending to corrupt young minds away from science and into the realms of anti-scientific Christianity.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
You should be saying...phew....good..... at least it is nothing sinister intending to corrupt young minds away from science and into the realms of anti-scientific Christianity.
I am nonplussed at how the discussion can go from me saying 'science doesn't know' in my quote to you thinking I meant intelligent involvement is 'true by default'.
Yerda
Veteran Member
It's a fascinating thing to ponder. Some things to consider,
Non-living things can replicate themselves.
The process of selection takes places in non-living replicating systems.
The division between life and non-life is blurry.
The first replicator didn't have to be DNA. That could have come later.
Your view is distinctly anti-scientific when you describe science as happenstance.
What the?? Science is the study of the natural world. The results in a universe with no designer can only be happenstance. It just happened that way with no intent.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then by the same standard the belief in a universe with a designer is the same since the designer just happened to design it this way.
But a designer means it happened as it did because of a designer’s will. This then becomes a factor in our grander philosophical considerations of what or if there is purpose in our lives.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, but the designer could have easily designed it differently, that is if someone believes in an omnipotent omniscient "designer". Once again, he just "happened" to make the world the way that it is, by your standards, not mine, this is "happenstance"
First true statement you have made in a long time!
Happenstance properly used in the English language is 'coincidence' a subjective judgement from the human perspective. Bad use of the English language.
Intent remains also an anthropomorphic judgement of human motivation, and no reasonable application in science. Methodological Naturalism the foundation of science makes no judgement nor differential concerning 'intent,' which would be human judgement.
I consider this foolishly anthropomorphic and assigning fallible human attributes to God.
Where did I assign fallible human attributes to God?
Describing God as a 'Designer' and Creation as 'Designed.'
God is not an engineer using human intellect to design our physical existence. God is the Creator and need not design anything in the manner of human attributes.
God simply Created our natural existence as it is naturally.
Last edited:
I am not sure where we disagree. 'Create' and 'design' are kind of synonymous words.
It is not happenstance to the designer/creator though. So that changes the philosophical issues involved in understanding what is or if there is meaning to our lives.
No, they are not in terms of God. Humans may create and design things from other things, but this is no way comparable to the nature of God Creates, which would be beyond human specualation.
It is not happenstance in terms of science either. This is a classic misuse of the English language. Science by its nature could not make the determination as to what is happenstance and what is not, because this would be a subjective judgement like its synonym a 'coincidence.'
I am fine with switching 'design' to 'create' in my previous statements if you like that better.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How do you know? It could be merely on a whim. And once again I could make the same claim about the universe if it arose naturally,
You are not being consistent in your application of the term "happenstance".
As I have said; my interest here is giving my thoughts on the OP question. I am not addressing the question of how 'science' should look at things but how I look at things.
Again as I said, science needs be slow and conservative and agnostic to the question of creation and stick to discussing what it can discuss. Science can't address the 'why' question at this time.
As I said in my previous post immediately above to Shunya, I agree with you if our only interest here is science.
I am influenced by wisdom traditions other than science too. And that shapes my personal position on the OP question.