The diffrence between the systems you describe in this particular example at least, is that cars, planes, turbines are clearly complex machines
designed by man but they are also static. They do not change at all and their intended function never alters.
I would disagree with this. Counter-example: the evolution of the jet turbine, or the evolution of the transistor.
When you juxtapose that with biological organisms who's DNA can be altered due to environmental factors alone it seems like a fairly different thing
to my eyes.
Give me an example of this. However consider the example of a man who loses his arm in an accident at work. He gets home from the hospital and makes
love to his wife. Will their child be born without an arm? What if instead of losing his arm he got cancer, would he pass it on? The only counter
example I can foresee would be chemicals that cause birth defects, but these defects are never adaptive. More importantly they presume a reproductive
system that abounds with the characteristics in question.
A car or plane still needs outside assistance to function. Biological organisms are devoid of that particular hurdle.
How can this be true? Much of said outside assistance necessary to function is built into the systems of the Universe. Consider how the body knows how
to guide its growth and development, as complex as the phenomenon is. Biological growth and developments abounds with the characteristics defined to
constitute an appearance of design.
How does the body know how to build proteins or complex micro-mahines? How does the body know how to build 216 different types of cell? Furthermore
the cells mean nothing in and of themselves, and only make sense in the context of the system they comprise (e.g. a neuron and the nervous system).
Furthermore the cascade of biological systems all presume the organism which they comprise. If life evolved then this would strongly suggest an
appearance of foresite. Foresite would be an example of ingenuity in problem-solving, and would further support my position that the Universe has an
appearance of design.
We have free will to choose whichever oath we desire no matter how illogical or harmful it could be to us.
This point is actually relevant to an entirely other philosophical concept I call the existential burden of liberty. Look up the word concupiscence.
The matter of free will is not unrelated, but is another conversation all together.
We have inherent genetic diseases that are a massive detriment to those born with then as we'll as their caregivers. That doesn't seem to me the
hallmark of a guided all powerful designer. If it is the designer needs to get his/her/it's ass back in school and figure out why it can't get it
edit on 23-9-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)
Your point is that one would not expect to find evil in a Universe created by a benevolent and all-might Creator. It is a serious challenge that has
riddled the ages. Essentially what you are getting at here is the problem of evil, which is also an entirely other philosophical discussion, and it
too is not unrelated. The question of salvation from evil in the Universe is a question of religion but has been alluded to briefly in the discussion
that followed the discourse, but is not the fundamental question addressed in my discourse. The reason for this follows:
If I don't believe in God because science says so, then why would I believe there exists a loving God who desires and has made a provision for my
salvation? I believe God has a laid out a plan for my salvation, and yours too if you would believe, through the death and resurrection of Jesus
Christ His Son, and through His Church. That is my experience, and reason supports my contention. This too is another matter entirely. If you want to
talk about it PM me and we can chat. First I would suggest taking an hour and reading one of the canonical Gospels; contemplating and praying on it.
Have you ever?
edit on 23-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)