RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 26, 2015 at 8:01 pm
(This post was last modified: January 26, 2015 at 8:01 pm by bennyboy.)
I really think you guys getting caught up in defining evolution is pointless. I'd accept Heywood's version of evolution as a simple definition: the change of species' phenotypes in response to statistical pressures. But all this is just a giant redding herring. He wants to assert the existence of intellect in the universe (aka God), but does not have actual evidence for said existence. He's therefore drawing parallels between things we know and things we cannot know-- but hasn't provided either logical proof or evidential support for that process, either. He has not shown his parallels to be either valid or meaningful.
In the end, the situation is pretty clear: Heywood believes in God, and is trying to find a way to make the God idea fit into a sensible word view. But when a sensible world view includes a demand for him to accept the BOP, he just can't provide any meaningful evidence for his idea.
In the end, the situation is pretty clear: Heywood believes in God, and is trying to find a way to make the God idea fit into a sensible word view. But when a sensible world view includes a demand for him to accept the BOP, he just can't provide any meaningful evidence for his idea.