RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 11:33 am
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2019 at 11:34 am by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 5, 2019 at 10:58 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:
For example, assume that we (somehow) discover not only that were are created beings...but that any fact which could have established this was so well hidden from us it could only be the work of some intervening god.
It would still be the case that the observations we made regarding how organisms evolved were true, and that discovery itself would show why we were well within reason to believe the thing that reality was turned into a giant trick to present itself as.
The theory that bunches your panties wasn’t full of any holes, reality was intentionally hull bored so that we couldn’t help but see it the way we did.
This is the ridiculously implausible but friendliest outcome of discovering some silly god. It is far, far more likely that if we ever discovered a god, it wouldn’t change our understanding of evolutionary development at all. Put simply, it would only show us that people told tall tales about real divinity.
I’m sure this won’t be hard for you to accept as an Adventist. Your beliefs, fantasies, wishes, and dreams will forever remain as much in the absence of evidence...and if you ever came across any evidence, it would still have to contend with whatever else is already in evidence. Things like modern synth.
Discovering that we're created and that there's an intervening God, would not affect evolution the way discovering that consciousness is not a biological process would. So you're using a bad analogy.
