It is interesting that Lewis advocated that we should "Follow the argument wherever it leads." People can argue for anything, and despite their belief that their own logic may be impeccable, they are often wrong. Lewis himself was on both sides of the ID issue. I think he had it right the first time.
The one time observational evidence was discussed in the video, it was in the context of the argument from functional complexity, where it was stated as a matter of fact that complex things are not created from less complex things. But this observation is utterly wrong. Aren't there people whose intelligence exceeds that of their parents? Don't we see complex crystals grow from liquid? What about the universe itself - developing from a mass of hot gasses into stars and galaxies?
If Lewis wasn't so convinced of the infallibility of his logical arguments, he might have been more willing to accept observational evidence to the contrary. Better to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
The one time observational evidence was discussed in the video, it was in the context of the argument from functional complexity, where it was stated as a matter of fact that complex things are not created from less complex things
Please explain the difference between 'complexity' and 'functional complexity'. I mean... you know there's a difference, right? Do you know how it impacts the "examples" you provided? (I loved the 'liquid -> crystal' one. That was glorious.)
Further, among the 'observational evidence' (and there was far more than you mentioned) cited, was the demonstrable use of intelligence in creating complex things. Which would be 'observational evidence' that swings against your position.
Lewis had not only logical arguments at his disposal, but also observational evidence - and it's only gotten more abundant since his time. By all means, follow the evidence wherever it leads - it just happens to lead out of the Cult of Gnu churches, and towards, at a minimum, deism/mere theism. At least on those considerations alone.
3 comments:
Did Lewis really have a "life-long struggle to find intelligent design in a world filled with pain"?
It is interesting that Lewis advocated that we should "Follow the argument wherever it leads." People can argue for anything, and despite their belief that their own logic may be impeccable, they are often wrong. Lewis himself was on both sides of the ID issue. I think he had it right the first time.
The one time observational evidence was discussed in the video, it was in the context of the argument from functional complexity, where it was stated as a matter of fact that complex things are not created from less complex things. But this observation is utterly wrong. Aren't there people whose intelligence exceeds that of their parents? Don't we see complex crystals grow from liquid? What about the universe itself - developing from a mass of hot gasses into stars and galaxies?
If Lewis wasn't so convinced of the infallibility of his logical arguments, he might have been more willing to accept observational evidence to the contrary. Better to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
The one time observational evidence was discussed in the video, it was in the context of the argument from functional complexity, where it was stated as a matter of fact that complex things are not created from less complex things
Please explain the difference between 'complexity' and 'functional complexity'. I mean... you know there's a difference, right? Do you know how it impacts the "examples" you provided? (I loved the 'liquid -> crystal' one. That was glorious.)
Further, among the 'observational evidence' (and there was far more than you mentioned) cited, was the demonstrable use of intelligence in creating complex things. Which would be 'observational evidence' that swings against your position.
Lewis had not only logical arguments at his disposal, but also observational evidence - and it's only gotten more abundant since his time. By all means, follow the evidence wherever it leads - it just happens to lead out of the Cult of Gnu churches, and towards, at a minimum, deism/mere theism. At least on those considerations alone.
Post a Comment