Michael
. . . You are right in that thermodynamics doesn't address the
complexity issue . . . We have to consider all the laws within the
context of the other laws. (Causality, thermodynamics, anthropic
principles (design&complexity), moral laws, non-contradiction, etc.
If
we find a watch on the ground, we don't assume that laws of nature
developed just the right conditions for all the watch parts to uniquely
evolve and come together to form a watch that works and keeps time.
Over time, water can form the grand canyon, but it cannot produce the engraved images on the side of Mt. Rushmore (by itself).
The
question regarding causality - "what caused God?" Is a good one. But .
. . God is not an effect. If we want to propose the big bang and or
evolution, we must begin with something that isn't an effect.
Dawkins
admits that a tiny amoeba is comprised of more information than the
thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica . . . But suggesting that
creation evolved from a big bang, without any intelligent intervention,
is equal to a printing press exploding and producing all 30 volumes of
the encyclopaedia. Asserting that the
printing press exploded and then evolved over billions of years is even more
ridiculous. Matter does not move from disorder to order bur
rather order to disorder.
The complexity of DNA could not come about without a designer any more than a book without an author.
No comments:
Post a Comment