I see that I am not expressing myself clearly, and now "identity" has gone in another direction than what I had intended. Avonia took "identity" to mean the "who" and Sentipente has continued on that track. The "who" is indeed an interesting question to ponder, but science does not deal in "who" but in "what" and "how."
When I talked about identifying characteristics of a decision, I wasn't referring to the "who" but to the "what." What does a decision look like if you could strip it down to its basics? And if a decision could be recognized beyond all reasonable doubt, and since we know that decisions are made only by intelligence, then wherever such identifying characteristics of a decision are found, it would be reasonable to conclude that intelligence has been at work.
So, for instance, if we were to observe a straight line etched on a sandy beach, and the outline starts at point A and stops at point B, it is ambiguous as to the origin of that line. The wind may have pushed a twig along on the sand before lifting it away. Or some other natural action could have caused it. But if the line is observed to have made a 90-degree turn from point B to point C, evidence begins to build, though no certain conclusion can yet be made. If the line again changes direction and runs parallel to the first line from point C to pont D, we now have three apparent decisions to change direction that normally are not seen to occur if the laws of nature were left to operate as they normally do. But we would continue to withold judgment. There could still be coincidence involved. But then we observe that the line again turns at a 90-degree angle and goes from point D back to point A. Hmmm, a perfectly square box outlined on a sandy beach does not look like something that nature, on its own, is known to cause. But the clincher comes if, in the middle of the square are three more apparent reflections of decision making. Two large dots with a curved line below them, making a smiley face. Well, now, nature is never known to produce smiley faces inside of square boxes on a wide-open stretch of sand, is it? If not nature, then what else? Intelligent decision making is the only other answer that I can think of.
Similar abrupt changes of direction can be found in the makeup of systems in nature. If it can be demonstrated that natural laws cannot make these increasing changes of direction that build on each other to create something functional, then intelligence would be the answer, not the rare, random mutations selected for. (The word "selection" itself implies decision making -- to take as a choice from among several; pick out, to make a choice or selection -- yet evolutionists use the word "natural selection" without seeming to understand its intent.)
I think that the reason why, whenever intelligence is recognized in nature, evolutionists call "halt" is because immediately the next question is "Who"? Recognizing intelligence is distracting. It becomes urgent to know the Who. And "Who" is a religious question, and a quest for this "Who" becomes religion. And they don't want religion being taught in the public schools. So they would prefer to cut this off at the pass long before students get to that point. They prefer to just say that "there is no evidence for intelligence as a source of nature's existence, and that will take care of it." But that position is one that leads many towards atheism. I've seen this happen.
It would help to draw the line between the hard science of recognizing intelligence, and the search for the Intelligent WHO, and hopefully, that way, creation theory that promotes intelligence as the origin of the universe, would be accepted as good science. We could simply direct the pressing question of "Who" to another equally good field, whether philosophy or religioin, and those fields of study can be pursued legitimately outside of the science lab. No honest evolutionist scientist can then say that creation science is religion and therefore must be kept out of science classes.
When I talked about identifying characteristics of a decision, I wasn't referring to the "who" but to the "what." What does a decision look like if you could strip it down to its basics? And if a decision could be recognized beyond all reasonable doubt, and since we know that decisions are made only by intelligence, then wherever such identifying characteristics of a decision are found, it would be reasonable to conclude that intelligence has been at work.
So, for instance, if we were to observe a straight line etched on a sandy beach, and the outline starts at point A and stops at point B, it is ambiguous as to the origin of that line. The wind may have pushed a twig along on the sand before lifting it away. Or some other natural action could have caused it. But if the line is observed to have made a 90-degree turn from point B to point C, evidence begins to build, though no certain conclusion can yet be made. If the line again changes direction and runs parallel to the first line from point C to pont D, we now have three apparent decisions to change direction that normally are not seen to occur if the laws of nature were left to operate as they normally do. But we would continue to withold judgment. There could still be coincidence involved. But then we observe that the line again turns at a 90-degree angle and goes from point D back to point A. Hmmm, a perfectly square box outlined on a sandy beach does not look like something that nature, on its own, is known to cause. But the clincher comes if, in the middle of the square are three more apparent reflections of decision making. Two large dots with a curved line below them, making a smiley face. Well, now, nature is never known to produce smiley faces inside of square boxes on a wide-open stretch of sand, is it? If not nature, then what else? Intelligent decision making is the only other answer that I can think of.
Similar abrupt changes of direction can be found in the makeup of systems in nature. If it can be demonstrated that natural laws cannot make these increasing changes of direction that build on each other to create something functional, then intelligence would be the answer, not the rare, random mutations selected for. (The word "selection" itself implies decision making -- to take as a choice from among several; pick out, to make a choice or selection -- yet evolutionists use the word "natural selection" without seeming to understand its intent.)
I think that the reason why, whenever intelligence is recognized in nature, evolutionists call "halt" is because immediately the next question is "Who"? Recognizing intelligence is distracting. It becomes urgent to know the Who. And "Who" is a religious question, and a quest for this "Who" becomes religion. And they don't want religion being taught in the public schools. So they would prefer to cut this off at the pass long before students get to that point. They prefer to just say that "there is no evidence for intelligence as a source of nature's existence, and that will take care of it." But that position is one that leads many towards atheism. I've seen this happen.
It would help to draw the line between the hard science of recognizing intelligence, and the search for the Intelligent WHO, and hopefully, that way, creation theory that promotes intelligence as the origin of the universe, would be accepted as good science. We could simply direct the pressing question of "Who" to another equally good field, whether philosophy or religioin, and those fields of study can be pursued legitimately outside of the science lab. No honest evolutionist scientist can then say that creation science is religion and therefore must be kept out of science classes.
Upvote
0
