A splendid video about evolution

We are talking about the evidence that the fact that life based on DNA cannot possibly evolve by RM+NS in a big way. I consider that to be a a FACT. Stadler and I agree completely about that, but I don't think you can jump from that to claim that anything like a Christian God was responsible. I could ask him for permission to repeat what he wrote, but my impression is that he wants to withdraw to his Christian bubble as fast as possible

This is definitely not a God of the gaps type of argument because the RM+NS argument seems/is the only argument that biology can propose for the existence of meaningful DNA strings. OK the Third Way folks may have an alternative, and I wish someone could get one of those guys to debate their alternative on this forum.However, actually I think they just want to get on exploring how evolution really works, and not bother with fundamental questions.

David

Oh I was agreeing with you in that particular instance, that ID (if assumed to be correct) merely shows some agent or teleology was involved but this isn't necessarily God.

Dembski says as much, even offering options that aren't conscious agents:

ID’s metaphysical openness about the nature of nature entails a parallel openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien, a computional [sic] simulator (a la THE MATRIX), a Platonic demiurge, a Stoic seminal reason, an impersonal telic process, …, or the infinite personal transcendent creator God of Christianity? The empirical data of nature simply can’t decide. But that’s not to say the designer is anonymous. I’m a Christian, so the designer’s identity is clear, at least to me. But even to identify the designer with the Christian God is not to say that any particular instance of design in nature is directly the work of his hands.

"Stoic seminal reason" and "Impersonal telic process" are not conscious agents. The existence of Reason and/or Telic Processes could then be argued as necessitating a God but that would be a separate argument.

However I do think there are arguments that, if assumed to be correct, could be seen as arguing for God as Ground of Being. For example if we see Math & Logic are mental "objects", and that it makes more sense for such "objects" to be in a Mind rather than a Platonic Realm.

These latter arguments are not "God did it" arguments because they show the necessity rather than probability of God as a fundamental entity. This isn't to say that these arguments are definitively correct, just that we shouldn't assume all arguments for God are "God of the Gap" style arguments.

However I do think there are arguments that, if assumed to be correct, could be seen as arguing for God as Ground of Being. For example if we see Math & Logic are mental "objects", and that it makes more sense for such "objects" to be in a Mind rather than a Platonic Realm.

I suppose I would say that questions like that are massively more abstract than the questions concerning evolution of life, putting aside its creation. Evolution of DNA by RM+NA is impossible because most intermediate steps are junk - there is no concept of incremental improvement. I believe Darwin himself said that if large steps were needed, then his mechanism would not work.

Looking at the ultimate problem, I must say, I find it hard to imagine a realm that did not have math or logic. Did these have to be created?

David

I suppose I would say that questions like that are massively more abstract than the questions concerning evolution of life, putting aside its creation. Evolution of DNA by RM+NA is impossible because most intermediate steps are junk - there is no concept of incremental improvement. I believe Darwin himself said that if large steps were needed, then his mechanism would not work.

Looking at the ultimate problem, I must say, I find it hard to imagine a realm that did not have math or logic. Did these have to be created?

David

I think no one knows for sure if math is created or discovered or possibly both.

Perhaps all mathematical truths exist in the Mind of God and are as eternal - whatever the word means - as God is.

I agree philosophical arguments are more "abstract" than scientific questions concerning evolution of life, but I think new discoveries may cast doubt on RM + NS needing minds since even Dembski gave alternatives to any mind let alone God's being necessary for evolution.

I think no one knows for sure if math is created or discovered or possibly both.

Perhaps all mathematical truths exist in the Mind of God and are as eternal - whatever the word means - as God is.

I agree philosophical arguments are more "abstract" than scientific questions concerning evolution of life, but I think new discoveries may cast doubt on RM + NS needing minds since even Dembski gave alternatives to any mind let alone God's being necessary for evolution.

Yeah, I think the mistake so many people make is to assume that we are close to the ultimate truth - so any new idea has to be tested with the ultimate questions. To me, knowing that some entity designed DNA (and no doubt a lot of other biochemical stuff) is good enough for me.

David

Yeah, I think the mistake so many people make is to assume that we are close to the ultimate truth - so any new idea has to be tested with the ultimate questions. To me, knowing that some entity designed DNA (and no doubt a lot of other biochemical stuff) is good enough for me.

David

Well there are leaps of faith that are wholly irrational and leaps that, while definitely being leaps, do have some reasoning.

My point, so much as I have one, is that while the leap from Design of this universe to a Monotheistic God is unwarranted I do think if a person takes the total of scientific based arguments (ID, Cosmic Fine Tuning), probabilistic arguments (Psycho-Physical Harmony), and metaphysical demonstration (Classical Theist arguments) the leap is more rationally based.

What I do think is important is recognizing the leap as a leap. This Absolute, arguably, need not be a singular being nor a being at all. 

But I don't think the belief i[n] "God" as a singular entity serving as the Ground of Being rather than "just another Being" is irrational.