Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: [i]It is amazing how widely different our interpretations turn out from the same information. I see God's hand in all of this amazing ability of organization by senseless molecules. Life is a symphony of molecular reactions following a framework of information provided initially by God. The ID site directed me to this new Talbott input, indicating a whole cadre of IDers think as I do.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]But presumably NOT as Talbott does. I hope IDers will take his ideas more seriously than you do.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]They approach Talbott as I do.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]So they reject his concept of design by an immanent creative power, do they, and opt for your “God did it” by direct design?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Intelligent design always implies a designer exists for direct design.[/i]
> 
> But it does not imply that a designer directly designed every species and natural wonder. A designer could also have designed a mechanism whereby organisms autonomously did their own designing, and that is what Talbott is advocating and what you refuse even to consider.
> 
> DAVID: [i]Talbott actually presents a beautiful set of essays in full support of design. That is why I have always presented his ideas. He supports my thoughts. I just don't have a wall in my thinking.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]Talbott clearly does NOT support your thoughts. Yes, he supports design, but ‘[b]to say that “natural selection did it” is just as much a refusal to investigate the actual life of organisms as to say “God did it.[/b]”’ You have a solid brick wall in your interpretation of Chapters 1 and 2 of life. Chapter 1 begins with an unknown and unknowable, eternal, sourceless and all-powerful conscious mind. You cannot see beyond that. Chapter 2 has that mind confined to a single purpose and a single, illogical means of fulfilling that purpose. You cannot see beyond that either.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]I don't try to. I don't care if Talbott stops short as you do. That is why I offered him in this series of entries. Look in the mental mirror and you will see him. We IDer's see the metaphorical wall as yours.[/i]
> 
> Then you have completely misunderstood Talbott (and me). Look at this quote: 
> 
> QUOTE: [i][b]This in no way conflicts with any convictions you may hold regarding a transcendent creative power sustaining the universe[/b]. It is merely to say that what we observe on earth is a power of life immanent in the organisms around us. Presumably you believe not only in the transcendence, but also in the immanence of the creative power[/i].(dhw’s bold)
> 
> Just like Darwin, Talbott is telling you that his theory does not exclude God! There is no wall – he remains open-minded. Walls are created by those who have fixed beliefs.