Are you are asking me if I reject the idea that a designer may have at least gotten things started at the chemical level? (Jon)
If you design something that can start to have its own free thoughts you have created a monster
(I will leave that one to ponder)
If you design biological systems to develop their own biological structures then you have designed them to create monsters, and I suppose: monsters that are biological engineers
(I will leave that one to ponder)
The forgoing is true, except that biological structures cannot do anything other than ‘hope’ to get better -
unless they themselves are biological engineers. And they must ‘also’ be capable of mentally
manipulating their own tissues and atoms to form structures and improve their own inward design
This is akin to bending spoons and moving chairs with our mind.
We Creationists believe biological systems are made to self replicate, survive and fix themselves. But
nothing in the Universe can explain how a ‘non-thinking’ atomic structure can ‘conceive, design and reason’ this process unless that structure is of itself conscious and ‘thinking’.
A computer can think, but it’s thinking was
designed into it. Computer designers do not design computers to start thinking about the computers own survival and needs. Otherwise the computer might decide it wants to become a paperweight or a bomb. True there are people who develop things that cause a computer to have free thought though. They are trying to
develop computers to use free thought using guidelines
they have designed; and there are the computer hacks that develop free thought viruses; that result in destructive behavior.
I believe biological systems ‘appear’ to have a slight ability to engineer for themselves productive improvements, but it makes no sense to think that they are ‘
thoughtfully producing a thought’ that says “
I must do something within my atomic structure in order to survive”. Or, “I must develop and produce something of ‘my own’ biological composition that improves or allows my survival”
What do you think, is evolution just an atheist doctrine or is it useful science? Maybe something in between? (Jon)
It is close to atheism in the sense of denying the ‘necessity’ of Creations creator (not necessarily the ‘existence’ of a Creator), but it definitely is a religion in the sense that it is a ‘belief’ that matter can arrange itself into complex structures.
Darwin's Theory is substantially religion, not science. (Candle)
Amen, there is no proof, or sense, or logic that ‘non-thinking’ can lead to develop and design. Let alone the intensely complex structures we observe and are. Evolution is the belief that ‘thinking and design can happen without the use of a mind’. This is exactly what eastern religions and specifically Universal mind religions believe, yet the ‘logical’ argument against ‘Universal Mind’ is that if you attach mind to mindless energy you have a contradiction. If anything has a mind, such as saying the Universe has a mind (or is a mind) then you have made that ‘thing’ have reason like a person. And
if a mind has reason then it is no longer simply ‘energy’ or a chemical thing, it must therefore be a ‘who’ (you have to draw the line somewhere or else electricity is a person too). So Evolution is akin to energy having a mind without a name.
Darwin’s ‘theory’ of Natural Selection and survival of the fittest is in itself acceptable to reason, but the idea that the mechanisms involved came about
without a designer is illogical. Neither of these two ideas are the property of evolution
they are just as much agreeable with Creation. And with Creation you have logic and thinking choosing the improvements and development, where evolution you have a spinning bottle doing the choosing.
Darwin’s common ancestor is not at all verifiable, it is assumed because things 'look alike' and have similar design they came ‘from’ each other. All common design proves is that they have a common design, designer, or common purpose of design (a Ford has four wheels, like a Chevy, both have the same purpose but one did not evolve from the other. A Volkswagon looks like a Porsche because they had the same designer).
Darwin’s slow gradual process defeats itself, because slow processes allow for dysfunction, virus and natural deterioration of previous process' and destruction from outside forces. All of these are more likely to happen than un-thought, un-designed advances, and chance positive mutations being successful enough to overcome the likelihood of disaster and death. Again it takes a will, motive, reason, plan and a goal to live. Non-thinking structures have
no-inward reason to live in the first place.
