...what do I say to them?
On the one hand you have all the masses of evidence that suggest that if you don't control the potentiation of an organism (its ability to construct a meaningful relationship with its environment), the organism will fail - the caretaker genes in principle do all the work there - and on the other hand, that if you just change the organism at random you are making it next to impossible for it to survive. The second point there is a little bit deeper than you might at first think too, since it is not clear what about changing context kills an organism. Which is the point I wanted to really make here...
...while ignorance fairly obviously gets in the way of an organism interacting with its environment, dealing with an obstacle of some kind is a lot tricker because you still have to interact with your environment and ignorance and obstacle are also largely interchangeable as obstacles go. So you can easily be lead astray by an obstacle that interferes with your ability to survive, without even actually knowing what it is. When it comes to mutations this is where the problem really comes out: if you evolve a successful mutation, that is surrounded by a dozen or more obstacle mutations, how do you get that one successful mutation to succeed to the point that it is a fully-fledged adaptation?
It would seem that you are playing pot luck with mutations and the fact that you can't necessarily activate the potential of any one of them without taking even more chances, would seem to indicate that the idea this all happens on an ongoing basis as a result of chance is pure fantasy. So while not explaining potentiation at all, Evolutionists have actually had us playing blind to the fact that you can't actually activate your Evolutionary "prize" with any success, any more than you can hit jackpot with enough time to begin with. This is basically where the whole world is getting lead astray: activation has to be as conscious as the continual presence of potentiation, in order for an organism to be able to change anything.
This might explain why Wisdom designed us with a bi-cameral mind, having two halves able to keep interaction and changes constant at the same time, in order for them both to have any success. There is certainly a point there, even if it is not immediately apparent that that particular design is what enables us to "keep things going (at the same time)" or that we even need to "keep things going (at the same time)" in order to survive. But that would seem to be the point I am able to make at least, "survival" is at least a lot more complicated than a simple commitment to one ideal or idea would suggest.
For example, say a giraffe wants to eat berries from the tree tops; there is the right height, the right tension on the branches, the right angle for the berries to go into the mouth and so on and so forth. But there is also the fact that he must remain safe, that his ears remain peeled for his horizon and at least one eye on the nearby trees. He may not be looking for a mate just at that moment, but there may be predators and so on and so forth. So his mind is active as a result of both conscious and unconscious processes that must all work together.
I guess what I am saying is that even in the present moment, we are irreducibly complex. That existing in time is an irreducibly complex undertaking, requiring us to be commited and full of purpose, not lacking in knowledge or determination. These things are not easy and they cannot happen in isolation, but must work together to create the greater whole. To say that this happens by accident is a vast, vast understatement, a denial of a whole array of potential that cannot be explained by anything other than God.
Which is where I come back to my original point, what do I say? What do you say to an Evolutionist, who is fine with ignorance, at least ignorance that exists at the purely theoretical level, who does not need to know that he has genes inside him making sure that everything he believes turns out the way he wants it to (or does he?) and who is fine with the idea that if there is such a thing as an obstacle, either he or everyone with him will pitch their shoulder to the boulder and move it, as if he is not surrounded by obstacles that require his constant discernment if he is ever to succeed at anything, let alone survive? What do you say?
Is it enough to point to God and expect him to work out the answers? Surely not? Is it better to argue on and on at length about all the caveats that Evolution has neglected to address? Really? So then what? Where is Wisdom in all this? God has the answer and it does not come without time, but should we not be directing the result? Or am I imagining a role for myself in the world that has nothing to do with the mystery of God for all of us?
Thoughts welcome.
On the one hand you have all the masses of evidence that suggest that if you don't control the potentiation of an organism (its ability to construct a meaningful relationship with its environment), the organism will fail - the caretaker genes in principle do all the work there - and on the other hand, that if you just change the organism at random you are making it next to impossible for it to survive. The second point there is a little bit deeper than you might at first think too, since it is not clear what about changing context kills an organism. Which is the point I wanted to really make here...
...while ignorance fairly obviously gets in the way of an organism interacting with its environment, dealing with an obstacle of some kind is a lot tricker because you still have to interact with your environment and ignorance and obstacle are also largely interchangeable as obstacles go. So you can easily be lead astray by an obstacle that interferes with your ability to survive, without even actually knowing what it is. When it comes to mutations this is where the problem really comes out: if you evolve a successful mutation, that is surrounded by a dozen or more obstacle mutations, how do you get that one successful mutation to succeed to the point that it is a fully-fledged adaptation?
It would seem that you are playing pot luck with mutations and the fact that you can't necessarily activate the potential of any one of them without taking even more chances, would seem to indicate that the idea this all happens on an ongoing basis as a result of chance is pure fantasy. So while not explaining potentiation at all, Evolutionists have actually had us playing blind to the fact that you can't actually activate your Evolutionary "prize" with any success, any more than you can hit jackpot with enough time to begin with. This is basically where the whole world is getting lead astray: activation has to be as conscious as the continual presence of potentiation, in order for an organism to be able to change anything.
This might explain why Wisdom designed us with a bi-cameral mind, having two halves able to keep interaction and changes constant at the same time, in order for them both to have any success. There is certainly a point there, even if it is not immediately apparent that that particular design is what enables us to "keep things going (at the same time)" or that we even need to "keep things going (at the same time)" in order to survive. But that would seem to be the point I am able to make at least, "survival" is at least a lot more complicated than a simple commitment to one ideal or idea would suggest.
For example, say a giraffe wants to eat berries from the tree tops; there is the right height, the right tension on the branches, the right angle for the berries to go into the mouth and so on and so forth. But there is also the fact that he must remain safe, that his ears remain peeled for his horizon and at least one eye on the nearby trees. He may not be looking for a mate just at that moment, but there may be predators and so on and so forth. So his mind is active as a result of both conscious and unconscious processes that must all work together.
I guess what I am saying is that even in the present moment, we are irreducibly complex. That existing in time is an irreducibly complex undertaking, requiring us to be commited and full of purpose, not lacking in knowledge or determination. These things are not easy and they cannot happen in isolation, but must work together to create the greater whole. To say that this happens by accident is a vast, vast understatement, a denial of a whole array of potential that cannot be explained by anything other than God.
Which is where I come back to my original point, what do I say? What do you say to an Evolutionist, who is fine with ignorance, at least ignorance that exists at the purely theoretical level, who does not need to know that he has genes inside him making sure that everything he believes turns out the way he wants it to (or does he?) and who is fine with the idea that if there is such a thing as an obstacle, either he or everyone with him will pitch their shoulder to the boulder and move it, as if he is not surrounded by obstacles that require his constant discernment if he is ever to succeed at anything, let alone survive? What do you say?
Is it enough to point to God and expect him to work out the answers? Surely not? Is it better to argue on and on at length about all the caveats that Evolution has neglected to address? Really? So then what? Where is Wisdom in all this? God has the answer and it does not come without time, but should we not be directing the result? Or am I imagining a role for myself in the world that has nothing to do with the mystery of God for all of us?
Thoughts welcome.
