If I ask?

@kellyjay said
I find it fascinating that some people can look at life, say it resembles complex things that look designed, but the way it looks designed is illusionary. What if it isn't an illusion? What if we are seeing exactly that, a design? Both beliefs, a mindless process, and design have questions about both. Can something that is designed have flaws? If there are design flaws, does ...[text shortened]... error-checking; without knowing what is required or desire to do anything towards or away from life?

On the one hand, we have the Theory of Evolution, which posits that all the rich variety of life currently on earth shares one common, simple, ancestor. It's a very bold claim, but so far, it has been a successful scientific theory.

If ToE is correct, then all the rich variation of life is almost entirely caused by DNA copying errors. No wonder certain religious people have opposed it so vehemently! It's basically saying that beings such as Dolphins, Elephants, Whales and Humans were not ever a blueprint in someone's mind; they came about by DNA and Natural Selection effectively throwing fecal matter against a wall and seeing what stuck.

On the other hand, there is DNA itself - a biological program language so robust that it produced millions and millions of thriving life forms on this planet from one very simple organism. Science is currently at a loss to explain how life started on Earth.

Even though I consider myself an atheist, I have not ruled out that the first DNA molecule on earth was designed by some alien species. Maybe it was, and it got seeded on this planet somehow.

I do recognize that this punts the problem of life starting on earth down the road; just as atheists complain that 'God' is not really an explanation, neither is an alien DNA design. It just poses another very hard question to solve.

@BigDogg

If ToE is correct, then all the rich variation of life is almost entirely caused by DNA copying errors. No wonder certain religious people have opposed it so vehemently!

Even though I consider myself an atheist, I have not ruled out that the first DNA molecule on earth was designed by some alien species. Maybe it was, and it got seeded on this planet somehow.

Can you see how your belief might be seen by some to "vehemently oppose" God ? Is it only "religious types" who are strongly reactionary?

You have punted the problem back a step and said maybe another species is responsible for the origin of human life. Now we have to ask where ]that other species had its origin, in still another seeding species in an infinite regress.

Vehement opposition is against a ultimate source of all life in One who is eternal life - God. Some of us "religious" types detect in your proposition vehement opposition to an uncreated Author of all life with the authority, wisdom, and knowledge to bring about all created living things.

If a divine theistic Originator of life were to somehow come down and be with us human beings and speak words, perform deeds, give teachings, and demonstrate authority, wisdom, power, knowledge, and yes goodness, who in human history would you say is probably the best candidate for that human being ?

@bigdogg said
If there is a designer, they are elusive enough that it is not obvious that they even exist.

And this is by design.

Free will does exist.

@kellyjay said
I think the best we can do by looking at what we see is it, the most reasonable and the most likely. In criminal cases, it is a reason beyond a reasonable doubt, and I don't think that should be raised or lowered for these types of cases. If we demand absolute proof, that will never be reached; there will always be some cause for questioning; science always has room for chan ...[text shortened]... error-checking; without knowing what is required or desire to do anything towards or away from life?

And I never said that evolution was mindless.

What I did say was that it was designed to enable one to come to their own conclusions vis-à-vis a creator, regardless of what the evidence says.

You know, free will... while still regarding the evidence. Evolution was just one tool in the creator's toolbox.

@divegeester said
Well I remain a creationist and happy to take the flack the goes with it. I also see evidence of evolution.

I still won’t become a Jehovah’s Witness though.
Just putting that out there because sooner or later you’ll be doing what sonship does,

Are you under some mistaken idea that KJ is a JW?

@suzianne said
Are you under some mistaken idea that KJ is a JW?

Yes, as I acknowledged in the the other thread.

@bigdogg said
On the one hand, we have the Theory of Evolution, which posits that all the rich variety of life currently on earth shares one common, simple, ancestor. It's a very bold claim, but so far, it has been a successful scientific theory.

If ToE is correct, then all the rich variation of life is almost entirely caused by DNA copying errors. No wonder certain religious peo ...[text shortened]... y an explanation, neither is an alien DNA design. It just poses another very hard question to solve.

For me, it is the information driving all of the processes that speak to design. Mindlessness doesn't have any desire to any end including life; neither does it know good from bad, acceptable to unacceptable, success to failure. As soon as we see the information within life directing it to do one thing and not another that speaks to design, in my opinion, then it also has error checking in it to see what was done, which in some cases is more complex than the thing it is checking, it speaks to design.

@suzianne said
And this is by design.

Free will does exist.

I don't see how we lose any free will if God was less elusive.

@kellyjay said
For me, it is the information driving all of the processes that speak to design. Mindlessness doesn't have any desire to any end including life; neither does it know good from bad, acceptable to unacceptable, success to failure. As soon as we see the information within life directing it to do one thing and not another that speaks to design, in my opinion, then it also has er ...[text shortened]... at was done, which in some cases is more complex than the thing it is checking, it speaks to design.

I am not sure if the 'information' must have been put there by someone, however. It might be an emergent property.

Again, if ToE is correct, much of the DNA information inside say, an elephant, is emergent. No one actually designed an elephant.

The most design possible under ToE is the DNA molecule and the first common ancestor.

As for error checking, if we're talking about the mechanism within DNA, it is ironically the failure of this mechanism that allows life to diversify.

@bigdogg said
I don't see how we lose any free will if God was less elusive.

If we are nothing but products of purely materialistic processes, then it is all just dominos falling; we are programmed to be what we are; nothing is independent of natural causes. We are hardwired to be what we are.

@bigdogg said
I am not sure if the 'information' must have been put there by someone, however. It might be an emergent property.

Again, if ToE is correct, much of the DNA information inside say, an elephant, is emergent. No one actually designed an elephant.

The most design possible under ToE is the DNA molecule and the first common ancestor.

As for error checking, if we're talkin ...[text shortened]... ism within DNA, it is ironically the failure of this mechanism that allows life to diversify.

That is one of the questions: Could the breakdown of the error a checking mechanism alter one life form and form another? Is that possible purely due to some mindless process? It is an excellent narrative, but is it possible? Do we see this type of change in life where something highly complex does not break down completely when error checking fails? Is it so common that when we see error checking fail, a new animal appears in a completely different form without any guiding force or plan? How did all of the necessary constraints keep the lifeform changing and alive while this was occurring when error checking was failing? That on its face seems as highly unlikely as the informational instructions within life appear out of a mindless process. Outside of circular reasoning by claiming it's done in life, that doesn't answer the question could it happen due to a mindless process or a directed one by intelligent design?

@kellyjay said
If we are nothing but products of purely materialistic processes, then it is all just dominos falling; we are programmed to be what we are; nothing is independent of natural causes. We are hardwired to be what we are.

None of this presents any problem whatsoever for free will.

My making choices according to who I am is the epitome of free will.

@bigdogg said
None of this presents any problem whatsoever for free will.

My making choices according to who I am is the epitome of free will.

Does a computer have the will to do what it likes, or does it do only what it is programmed to do? If you are a product of purely materialistic conditions, then all you are, are nothing but that. You are hardwired to act, think the way you are wired, you can do nothing else. The dominos will fall as they are set up, the program will run as it was designed to, there is no will within the computer.

The ability to allow for free will requires something unique from ourselves. We can set up programs to run; we can write stories where the characters act as we tell them to, but giving the ability to make a choice freely is a divine gift.

@kellyjay said
I think it's all of the above, and because of that, even addressing the question can be offensive to some as they see the ramifications regardless of how one views it.

It isn't possible to offend me (so far ) ;-)

@kellyjay said
Does a computer have the will to do what it likes, or does it do only what it is programmed to do? If you are a product of purely materialistic conditions, then all you are, are nothing but that. You are hardwired to act, think the way you are wired, you can do nothing else. The dominos will fall as they are set up, the program will run as it was designed to, there is no wil ...[text shortened]... characters act as we tell them to, but giving the ability to make a choice freely is a divine gift.

A computer doesn't have consciousness. The comparison doesn't work.