Several weeks ago Elise asked if it was possible for communication to take place between people who hold to such diametrically opposing views. Some said, Of course we can, but I think she’s right. All we do is throw words at each other.
I’ve pointed out a couple times that it doesn’t seem to be the information that I present that is the problem. No one for example has told me that the information in the post, “So, Correct Me” is wrong. It’s that “scientific” information that is coming from a Christian is not acceptable. This is especially true if that information requires atheists to question their deeply held convictions. If that’s not the reason for atheists ignoring scientifically correct information, then you tell me? What’s the reason for expressing your unexamined prejudice and thereby blocking yourself from open inquiry?
It’s not like methodological naturalism doesn’t refer to intelligent agents or use design detection on a regular basis on its own. Archaeologists, forensic scientists, cryptographers, and anthropologists infer past intelligence as cause all the time. Even astro biologists on the hunt for extraterrestrial intelligence have followed Sagan’s dictum that if we could find just one line of information, we have discovered proof of intelligence aside from our own.
Just one line of information.
That’s all it would take.
Place in front of atheists a volume of information equivalent to 1,000 sets of the encyclopaedia Britannica however and what do we get? “It’s just biological material, folks. There’s nothing to see here. Go on home.”
I was taken to task for saying that atheists restrict themselves to a narrow band, an unrealistically narrow band of evidence. I still think it’s true. I’m open to any explanation of what we observe. If supernatural gives the Best Evidence, so be it. If evidence for a naturalistic explanation points the way, then let’s follow it. Not so for atheists. They are committed to only what’s immediately in front of them. Because of that narrow band of awareness, my fear is that atheists are committing themselves to an unjustified and quite likely a false view of biological origins.
I mean, ask yourself. Is it not at least logically POSSIBLE that an intelligent, conscious, personal agent existed prior to the appearance of first life?
Is it not even possible?
And if it IS possible that an intelligent agent existed prior to the advent of biological life on earth then isn’t it also possible that the activity of this agent could be detected by some means of scientific detection? As stated, origins and historical science uses these methods on a regular basis. One method, “competing hypothesis” was used in this series.
Can you call yourself scientifically minded and live by the assertion that it’s absolutely impossible that any intelligence of any kind existed prior to biological life on earth?
And how can you say that with such certainty given the complete lack of supporting and verified evidence for biological abiogenesis? Oh sure, there’s Dawkins version of events but seriously, the number of people unhooking their wagon from his star is growing exponentially every day.
If you consider yourself a truth seeker regarding the origin of life on earth, you cannot limit this issue to the question, “Which methodologically natural hypothesis is most adequate?”
Rather, I should think the question would be, “What is the Best Evidence regarding the origin of the information that made possible the rise of first life on earth?”
We know that Chance is an extremely unlikely candidate. Have you ever asked yourself why the multi verse hypothesis was invented?
We know that Chemical necessity is an extremely unlikely candidate. Have you ever asked yourself why the multi verse hypothesis was invented?
We know that RNA replication is an extremely unlikely candidate. Have you ever asked yourself why the multi verse hypothesis was invented?
The multi verse hypothesis was invented because all of the above are extremely unlikely candidates. This is really sad, but the next best thing in the atheist’s quiver is an infinite number of universes where one of those universes had specified, formulated information arise by a means other than by an intelligent agent - "Hey! Just like ours did."
Setting aside this atheist origin of life mythology for a bit . . . Beyond knowing that the above are highly improbable, we also know that large amounts of specified complexity or formulated information are generated ONLY by Intelligent Agents. Just how committed do you have to be to a world-view to purposely ignore the evidence that’s looking you straight in the eye? (((Sigh))).
In fact I think it's possible that the atheist’s inability to comprehend what it is they are reading is one more piece of evidence for Creator God. Unless someone has been “made” intellectually deaf and blind, as some portions of Scripture suggest may be the case, no one can be so stupid as to not recognise the evidence for Creator God that has been placed before them.
The atheists that post here seem to be caught in a paradigm where only one type of evidence is acceptable, i.e., naturalism or materialism. What they don’t seem to realise is that when proposals that fit ONLY one type of competition, or proposals that fit ONLY into an artificially constrained competition (nothing beyond nature is allowed) then those examining those proposals cannot say that their theory is the best or the most true or the most causally adequate. It’s like holding a race to see who is the fastest runner in the world, but only white males from North America may compete.
Neither Chance, nor Predestination nor RNA replication are workable, but those are the only theories that atheists will allow themselves to choose from. How scientific is that?
If you really are a seeker of truth, then it would seem to me that ANYTHING that answers the question and is causally adequate should be examined. I mean, are you after an answer? Or are you after the right answer? Following the evidence regardless of where it leads is the only method that will take you closer to the truth. Rejecting hypothesis a priori because of their possible metaphysical outcomes seems to me just the opposite of the scientific method that atheists claim to hold so dear.
Judging by causal adequacy is a neutral criteria from a scientific AND a metaphysical point of view. Yet this more rational approach is simply not allowed by the rational, logical and reasonable atheists posting here.
Humans can be sooo disappointing!