Saturday, December 29, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
No to theistic evolution- that oxymoronic obscurantism!
As Lamberth's teleonomic argument notes, since science finds no divine intent, then He has no referents as Creator, Grand Designer, Grand Miracle Monger and so forth and thus cannot exist, besides He has contradictory, incoherent attributes and thus cannot exist. Thus, theistic evolution means just an oxymoronic obscurantism!
Theists feel that evolution is His way of creation, but never do they purport how He can use evolution- just a baseless supposition! They must give evidence as to how He operates in the Cosmos instead of just supposing He does.
For them to claim that however, He hides Himself ambiguously as the late John Hick claims in order not to overwhelm our free wills to accept Him betrays evolution. What malarkey! That is just one of his rationalizations to obscure the truth: no intent appears, because none exists. He is just using the argument from ignorance! Before, that he implicitly uses the argument from personal incredulity that how could things be as they are naturally, in effect?
By using that intent, theists contradict instead of complementing science! Their notion cannot rest on being a metaphysical category instead of being a scientific one. That wold beg the question of that category! Metaphysics rests on science,so it must not contradict it. As Lamberth's new Omphalos argument complains, theistic evolutionists are in, effect, claiming that He deceives us with that ambiguity just as Gosse's old one claims that He deceives with apparent ancient ages for objects!
How does He operate? By the magic of let it be? Does He tweak mutations? Does He cause random events like the demise of the dinosaurs?
Please Tweet this! This article is key to the destruction of theism- reduced animism!
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)