Why the Appearance of Design in Biology is Best Explained by the Existence of God
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- For more information, read God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (amzn.to/2kAroVD)
READ:
Why the Appearance of Design in Biology Is a Problem for Atheistic Naturalism
coldcasechrist...
This video, excerpted from J. Warner Wallace’s presentation of the evidence for God, summarizes the case for Gods existence from the appearance of design in biological organisms. What are the reasonable attributes of design we recognize in intelligently created objects? Do these attributes exist in biological organisms, and, if so, what intelligent source is most reasonable as an explanation? For a robust review of the collective case for God’s existence from eight pieces of evidence “inside the room” of the natural universe, please refer to God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Homicide Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe.
As a freelance graphic designer who works with clients who don't know anything about design can be frustrating sometimes. They think design is easy because they don't know all the time, effort, skills, and knowledge that is required to design something. Maybe it is because a lot of them believe in the theory of evolution, which tells that everything we see is an accumulation of randomness and coincidences.
I'm sure every architect and engineer would agree with you: design is one of the hardest things a human does.
I’m also a graphic designer and agree with you fully. What’s also interesting is how quickly some want a design that is perfect for them. They take time. We have creative fatigue or sometimes design something and decide it won’t work and have to redo it!
The world basically holds two positions. Either intelligence holds this universe together or blind chance holds it together. Either a God of intentions binds this together or the god of chance got extremely lucky and eventually everything we see and experience....including this very conversation, came about by eons of time, determination and blind chance. Only one of these propositions holds the most faith and belief in. When you tell someone, "give it enough time, and it can happen," who is truly arguing from a gap?
Fantastic point there bro, that’s what a lot of people believe, “give enough time” when it’s been proven that more time makes things worse.
You should watch Stephen Meyers: Darwin’s doubt, it explains how evolution is biologically and chemically impossible.
I often reference Stephen Meyers in online discussions on both Darwinian evolution and Abiogenesis vs Intelligent Design. You should also watch the videos debunking Abiogenesis (Origin of Life) from the point of view of a synthetic organic chemist who explains the chemistry behind OOL is WRONG! youtube.com/@DrJamesTour
The Evolutionist cannot find the Creator for the same reason a burglar cannot find a cop... their always running the other way.
Wow that's an interesting point
good point
I was taught in HS biology that the cell just contains some complex chemistry. Boy, was THAT idea bogus!
I'll be sending a link to this outstanding talk to someone I know, a former colleague, who has told me she is a pantheistic pagan. I'll tell her that J. Warner gives the far better way to see creation.
I am always exasperated when talking to atheists about this subject, I always run into the “yeah but” discount of any evidence put forth. To me the argument for design is so strong, but the denial of diehard atheist is always stronger. It seems to me like they have made Richard Dawkins their god, as if his conclusions are the only ones.
To admit God exists is to face the fact that they have to choose between God and their sin.
Think of it this way, if proof or real evidence was what atheists were really looking for, they would never be the same folks arguing about how many genders there are.
Atheists know but don’t want to admit, then there are the blind followers that don’t know and don’t admit. God has revealed Himself through creation.
Nice coverage. Designed things feature a couple of characteristics that I think trump the random crowd:
1. designed things are low entropy objects; and in living objects, have mechanisms to maintain a low entropy state for a considerable period, until death occurs, of course.
2. Designed things also feature an orchestration of parts: sub-systems that interface parsimoniously, have clear system boundaries and which systems are non-deterministically related. That is, the subsystems by themselves do not predict the final function of the system-of-systems, which characterizes life.
For instance, the musculoskeletal system that accommodates they eye, and with the autonomic nervous system that accommodates the eye and its nervous connections, allows for ocular and visual tracking, stability and proprioceptive feedback in itself has no 'interest' in vision, or the complex eye-brain system.
The sub-systems are brought together in a manner that allows them to exceed their basic utility and provide a capability that is beyond any part of the system. The organisation imposes a telos on the sub-systems that is not only of low entropy, but is also of value to none of the sub-systems in isolation. Design is imposed on them. And the designed thing does more than the collection of parts them selves do disconnected. This goes for buildings, computers, linear accelerators, MRI scanners, eyes, and digestive systems.
These are very important arguments and points to be made. However, I always see the most important option being thrown out. Usually, specific designs do not only evolve from simple to complex. Let’s say that complexity is the number of proteins but independency is the number of possible ways they can function properly together with changes. I see complexity and in dependency as two different measurements. Imagine that a long large string of proteins kept forming and a certain cell decided to use one that rotated well. all it would take would be for one to successfully use it properly and you have the motor and the cell ready to go and reproduce. if it still is capable of small mutations, it can actually get rid of extra information that is in the way and reduce its complexity while at the same time decreasing its independency (increasing its irreducible complexity while reducing its actual complexity) so you wouldn’t go from 0 to 30 but maybe from 0 to 1000 and back down to 30. The 1000 would not be very efficient but it would have function but not irreducible complexity.
commenting for algorithm. thank you for your work and God bless you!
its truly frightening that a scientist could be a atheist.
to look at prescion on top of prescion and say with a straight face.
nah that was all random
I know there's a full length video of this teaching but I can't find it. Anyone have it saved somewhere?
This is so completely obvious per design. Have the evolutionist to explain his theory in view of the Second law of thermodynamics. Entropy.
Have you heard of their rebuttals to that argument?
I wish more pepole can listen and belive by you ❤️❤️
The elements of design and construction in biology can also be seen in the design of the physical universe itself. The physical universe functions as a well designed machine. Nothing is really natural. Random processes result in entropy. Zen Buddhists claim that God sees the universe through your eyes.
What's wrong with just saying that evolution is a natural process arising from the fundamental laws of the universe which were put in place by God?
Evolution teaches humans are the cause of death. God teaches death is the cause of humans.
Awesome
Hi. Where did you get that Robert dorit quote? What is the source?
Only the almighty creator God can design this.
.