Love it …
I see, and are you taking this position because you have actually gone to primary sources and researched the idea as put out by its proponents, or are you just parroting the words of your great prophet, Dawkins (PBUH)? The simplest explanation is only right if it can actually explain the phenomenon in question; the simplest explanation for my existence is that I popped into being spontaneously. Alas, though this is simpler, my origin required a more complicated process to actually come about.
Hello everyone.
You were one of the ones I had in mind. But other than you and few others I can’t think of any.
Greetings.
It is. In both cases, a designer/creator/sovereign is needed to hand it down or create the framework and each item with a purpose. The aggregate of decisions by individuals about themselves creates a spontaneous framework, rather than imposed from on high.
Funny, I never knew that DNA made decisions.
As I said, some dead Austrian economist made a distinction between action and other behaviour that isn’t purposeful, he has a book around here.
The designer could have easilly been entropy, but when one speaks of insentient matter, speaking of it as if it can act and make decisions is extremely unscientific and thus of no use in a discussion of evolution; its fine for metaphors and the like, but it is unsuited for analysis.
But is entropy intelligent? No.
Seems to me he was making a metaphorical analysis.
Rust never sleeps.
my my, hey hey
But can entropy act like an intelligent designer at times: yes; after all, I never implied that it was.
.
Then woe be upon him, metaphysics is dead.
Funny, I never knew that strawmen were valid argumentation techniques. Guess you sure showed me!
As I said, some dead Austrian talked about spontaneous order. He has a book around here.
Notice how I can turn your phrase back at you. Maybe you should rethink using it.
Spontaneous order is referring to order created from the actions of self-interested sentient homines agentes, not inanimate matter; it has nothing to do with evolution.
Absolutely, spontaneous order eludes to the phenomena of action (i.e. rational choice). I believe Hayek goes into this (action as a prerequisite), I’ll have to check.
On a side note, I am also a Christian.
Christian creationist here. I’ve been lurking around here for about a year now. A lot of the members here seem to be culturally conservative, or at least neutral, even if they aren’t actually Christians (assuming “cultural conservatism” is some acknowledgement of traditionally Christian norms and values). But yeah, few members are clearly professing Christians.
Please, are you arguing that it makes more sense that something else popped into existence then created some stuff, then created you out of it, made you live, created the whole world, divinely revealed certain seemingly random things, intervened at seemingly random points, seeing as it set the events in their inevitable motion in the first place?
According to whom? Newsflash: positivism is even more dead.
You were wrong, I pointed it out, you claim what I said to be a strawmen. Surely, that’s not the best you can do?
My my my, how you creationists just can’t get over the fact that some things don’t require an outside intelligent agent to create. Seriously, there are a lot of statists who think order comes from the government, and that’s no different from believing all the order and design comes from an intelligent designer.