Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonio  That's a false dichotomy. It relies on the baseless assumption that events are random if there is no intelligence to guide them. In reality there is no such thing as randomness in the universe, and it's more accurate to say that events have causes and not reasons. Each event is preceded by a specific series of events, and if some of those preceding events were different then the outcome event would be different. Some events may simply appear to be random because our senses aren't capable of perceiving all the preceding events.
It's certainly possible that some intelligence may be causing events to happen in the universe for specific reasons. But that possibility is a scientific matter and not a philosophical one. The origins of life and the universe are questions for science and not for religion or philosophy. That is because the physical universe exists independent of human belief.
Criticisms of evolution sometimes claim to have a scientific basis, but they're really about scriptural beliefs or philosophical arguments such as life allegedly having no meaning. Neither of those has anything to do with whether evolution has any scientific accuracy. If new evidence surfaced that resulted in a different hypothesis about origin of species, creationism would still reject that hypothesis if it didn't fit the philosophical agenda. That's the real problem with creationism - attempting to explain natural phenomena according to what is philosophically or emotionally satisfying. |
And yours relies on what? Nothingness. Events having a “specific series of events” that preceded it, but it all occurred out of nothing. But then you go on to say there is a possible intelligence. Can intelligence exist in a vacuum? And how can you claim God has no scientific basis when you said yourself “our senses aren't capable of perceiving all the preceding events”? Doesn’t God fall within this “senses” problem? Because we can’t see, touch or smell Him or somehow prove His existence through science He can’t possibly exist; yet so much is not provable with science because “our senses aren't capable of perceiving all the preceding events”. Perhaps science is too far behind the curve (or just too disinterested) to come up with an explanation for a concept like God.