Joined: Dec. 2007
|Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2013,17:59)|
| Professor Christopher Martin’s slighting references to the Great Architect display his lack of familiarity with history. I have already shown, in my previous post, that the reference to God as the “Great Architect” goes back not to the 18th century Freemasons but to John Calvin in the 16th century, and that artistic depictions of God as an Architect go back to the Middle Ages.|
What I would maintain, as an ID advocate (and I’m speaking for no-one but myself here), is that if God wishes to make an oak, He needs to specify, down to the last detail, the genetic information He wishes that oak to contain in its cells. If He didn’t do that, then the thing He made wouldn’t be an oak at all. Indeed, it wouldn’t be alive at all. It wouldn’t even be an entity, but only a virtual imitation at best.
In a nutshell: the top-level of an entity does not, and cannot, determine all of the details at the bottom. If God tried to make men from the top down, without specifying their constituent atomic particles, then they wouldn’t be men at all. They’d be no more real than the things in the movie, “The Matrix.” Real entities – be they people, animals, plants or minerals – have to be fully specified at the bottom level as well as the top. Otherwise, they’re not entities at all.
keep that in mind when you read John West Jr's little essay "Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same"
In a similar vein, what I maintain, as a man who can tie his own shoelaces (and I’m speaking for no-one but myself here), is that if God wants to bake a cake, he has to specify, down to the last detail, the type, location, and orientation of every single atom and sub-atomic particle in it. None of this mixing the ingredients in a bowl and baking at 350 degrees crap.
Edited by CeilingCat on Jan. 07 2013,14:00