In the beginning…
Cartoon humbly stolen from http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/evolution-vs-intelligent-design-in-expelled/26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26b
Everything you’ve ever seen has a cause. Your kitchen appliances were made by someone–likely from China. That smell by your back door is caused by the substance stuck on the bottom of your shoes. Trees grow from seed, water, soil and sunlight. In the search for food, the bee propagates the flower. Everything has a cause.
Let’s consider briefly what this world would be like without this causal relationship. What would happen if things just happened un-caused? Your car is gone from the parking lot. Was it stolen or did it just disappear? Or better yet, there is a fully restored 1968 Ford F100 with a 3-speed column shift in its place! Money appears and disappears from your purse or wallet. You wake up to random 3-headed animals in your bedroom. Your next child could be born as a chimp in an bow tie, having just finished typing hamlet on a typewriter by randomly punching letters, why not? It would be a crazy, crazy world.
Everything is caused by something–nothing is caused by nothing.
With that in mind, it seems to me that when considering the First Cause of the universe and the mind of man, naturalism utterly fails. Naturalism can say nothing about a First Cause of the universe because naturalism is dependent on the (natural) universe if it is to be coherent. As for the first cause of the mind of man, naturalism is self-refuting. If the mind has only natural causes, then our perception of truth is a chemical illusion and therefore, any truth in naturalism is also a chemical illusion.
The alternative view is Intelligent Design (ID). This view keeps the door open to transcendent causes while studying the natural ones. With this presupposition, a universal First Cause has meaning, and the mind of man is able to accurately perceive it. It isn’t a religious position in itself, but its appeal to the religious community should be obvious (besides the fact that it coheres better with what we observe in the world).
Therefore, when faced with these two options, how would you finish the statement, “In the beginning…”? My answer? It begins with “God…”, naturally.
Posted on May 11, 2011, in All Posts, Apologetics, Philosophy, Science and tagged Intelligent Design, Naturalism. Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.
I highly doubt the phrase “utterly fails” is correct. If natyralism “utterly fails”, then the same is true for “ID”. If you basing success on giving a factual representation of “the beginning”, they must both be utter failure for the reason the both offer only speculations. If either had reached a point beyond speculation, then the other would be voided as possible, and their would be no room for debate.
I highly doubt the phrase “utterly fails” is correct. If naturalism “utterly fails”, then the same is true for “ID”. If you’re basing success on giving a factual representation of “the beginning”, they must both be utter failures for the reason they both offer only speculations. If either had reached a point beyond speculation, then the other would be voided as possible, and their would be no room for debate.
Nick…I thought this post might prompt a response from you. Welcome back. Can you comment on why I say Naturalism “utterly fails”? Since the only two options available are naturalism and design, if one “utterly fails” the other becomes that much more plausible (if you are aware of a third option, I’d be interested in hearing it). Finally, don’t confuse reasoned arguments with speculation–that is why I’d like you to deal with the arguments (i.e. no natural first cause and the truth illusion). Thanks for staying in touch, Cuz. Love you!
Well, all I have is my take on the topic. When I see no real solid ideas beyond theory, i see speculations. I’m not sure where you get your facts on how “ID” surpasses “naturalism” in validity, other than it’s been around longer.
When I think of “ID”, I think of why people assume it to be true. The best I can come up with is that people see how things intertwine and function as a whole”meaning life”, and all the things that are necessary for it to exist. They think that for instance “a bee gathers nectar for its hive, but intern pollinates flowers as an intelligent design”. But, what if its this “when the conditions are right, life is inevitable. It evolves to a state that allows it to thrive to the best of its abilities based on its environment, which requires coexistence for the greater good. Its nothing more than finding the best possible way to exist.”…The same way animals on earth evolve/adapt to their specific environments. In which a lot of cases, if an animal is removed from said habitat and introduced to another, it will perish. The same is true for us without our technology!
People get the idea that because “life” seems to rely on each other for existence, that it must be a part of an intelligent design. They sometimes forget that if we were removed from the equation that life would continue and never bat an eye. WE rely on everything else, not the other way around.
If the conditions were perfect, we wouldn’t need to be careful of have too much sun, which causes cancer… Their are several more reasons that the conditions could be consider imperfect despite the low probability of it happening. Just because it exists doesn’t mean its perfect. Life continues to struggle with existence on all levels for the need to survive. If it were perfect, the I’d assume there would be no need to struggle…. Hence the reasons life form become extinct, but life seems to continue by adapting to the ever changing conditions… Humans could very well find their selves on the endangered species list someday.
P.S. Sorry if it seems a bit jumbled! This is a topic that I am very interested in and have lots to say on the matter… So much trying to get out all at once! Lol… As far as why you think it fails, I can’t say much. You have your answer to “the beginning” that your satisfied with, which has been around aeons! The naturalist view is a relatively new one, which is still in its infancy. It has ideas/theories it is building on. It will take time and effort to overcome “ID”. The first assumption is rarely the correct one. In saying that, it’s possible that the “ID” could equally be incorrect, the same as Naturalist had some dead end ideas in it’s beginning….
Love you cuz! Congrats on the newborn!
You know, ID is actually a science. Read Darwin’s Black Box, Signature in the Cell, or (what I’m picking my way through right now) The Nature of Nature. You can also visit the http://www.discovery.org, evolutionnews.com or uncommondescent.com. I’ve also referenced some work by Doug Axe that is a strong refutation of the theory that underpins naturalism (Darwinian evolution). It is more than a “perspective”.
Also, don’t conflate creationism and ID (common mistake). Creationism is the theory of the “aeons”. ID is pretty new. It involves the scientific identification of the elements of design. See http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php for more information. Love you, Cuz.