Evidence for God from Science

Paley's watchmaker argument was criticised because biological life is not mechanical like a watch. Yet, I came across an flash animated movie which I suppose is a response to such a criticisim. I enjoyed it and thought others here might enjoy it too.

http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html

Kurieuo wrote:Paley's watchmaker argument was criticised because biological life is not mechanical like a watch. Yet, I came across an flash animated movie which I suppose is a response to such a criticisim. I enjoyed it and thought others here might enjoy it too.

http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html

Very good!

Very nicely put!!!

Tops!

Wow, even though the site is for kids, it's really interesting!

Thank you for sharing.

While we are out for having fun...


http://www.jhuger.com/watchmaker

Desire to draw out and comment on the main points you find significant?

Kurieuo

One that I noticed - it is not nearly as aesthetically pleasing as that in the original post. I found no soul.

angel wrote:While we are out for having fun...


http://www.jhuger.com/watchmaker

Angel,

This link goes beyond science and into promoting a philosophical position at the end that there is no creator or intelligent designer.

Is that the position you are promoting?

Bart

Wow Angel, you must also believe in this:

http://www.jhuger.com/ten_commandments

I agree Bart. I see no reason why else such an article would be linked to without further comment.

I am familiar with the arguments which have been accepted by many as having essentially refuted Paley's Watchmaker argument. The page angel links to delves into some of them using a narrative. Despite this, Paley's argument is coming back today due to the Intelligent Design movement and belief that "intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there exist well-defined methods that, on the basis of observational features of the world, are capable of reliably distinguishing intelligent causes from undirected natural causes." (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idmovement.htm) If this were not so then many sciences methods as forensics, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence would be pointless.

Thus, I would argue there is validity to Paley's argument, albeit it needs to dialogue deeper with arguments such as those drawn from Hume's thinking. When delved into deeply, I believe it is possible to salvage Paley's argument from the criticisms leveled against it.

I would like to add that on a more basic level, I believe many do not need to go to such philosophical depths in order to be justified in accepting Paley's argument. If one believes they have experienced God within their faith, I see that such provides them with the foundations for accepting that they are more clearly able to see and judge the evidence in the universe for God's existence. Note that such is not an inductive argument to God's existence, but is rather deductive from one's already embracing God's existence.

Kurieuo

Thanks Kurieuo,

I really enjoyed this one..

>>Paley's watchmaker argument was criticised because biological life is not mechanical like a watch. Yet, I came across an flash animated movie which I suppose is a response to such a criticisim<<

Nice little film. The problem with the film, from the perspective of an evolutionist, is that it suggests that the timepiece couldn't have come together completely randomly. Of course, the filmmaker is correct. Randomness is a feature in evolution, but natural selection is also an essential part of the picture.

This film is typical in that it never mentions natural selection.

David Blacklock wrote:>>Paley's watchmaker argument was criticised because biological life is not mechanical like a watch. Yet, I came across an flash animated movie which I suppose is a response to such a criticisim<<

Nice little film. The problem with the film, from the perspective of an evolutionist, is that it suggests that the timepiece couldn't have come together completely randomly. Of course, the filmmaker is correct. Randomness is a feature in evolution, but natural selection is also an essential part of the picture.

This film is typical in that it never mentions natural selection.

Like you stated before.. (in your own words).

"DB: There is no accepted scientific explanation for how life began. It's all speculation. Natural selection is not a factor in the first appearance of a living thing."

The film is starting with the beginning of life. Natural selection is not a factor..

Gman says (paraphrased by DB): You said in your own words natural selection doesn't explain the origin of life.

DB: Indeed I did and that is true. Behe himself, however, suggests that once the designer made the cell, evolution could have done the rest, in his "Black Box." In other places in that book, he seems to be more wishey-washey. The fact is, he has said it, and when pressed, has admitted the possibility that evolution by random mutation and natural selection is a possible way the designer could have done it.