Skip to main content

the intelligent design

There are two distinct suppositions we can make about the nature of our existence:

A) Everything comes from nothing
B) Everything comes from something

Dedicated atheists will tell you that A is positively correct and they might try and take you back to some big bang which still needed some sort of fuel to happen. Even a spontaneous chemical reaction requires explaining as to where that gaseous cloud originated.

The reason I pick B is because it is the more logical of the two statements. After all, every process we observe in the universe has a beginning and an end; whether that be the creation of a baby, a rose or a diamond. It is what observe everyday in nature.

The additional problem with option A is that it hinges on the presumption that as limited flesh and bones creatures, additionally saddled with massive biases and blinders, we can comprehend the vast intelligence behind creation. This is not possible because our brains (sophisticated though they may be) cannot come to a resolution on such a hugely complex undertaking. Hence the only possible logical position left is agnosticism; i.e. to harbour doubt until things can be proven or disproven.

The fact is that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven and to state otherwise is to be disingenuous. However, I prefer to observe that what I see all around me involves vast intelligence. Call it intelligent design if you will by some force or entity I cannot explain or conceive of.

As for the intelligence of some so called "religious" people, well that is another matter altogether.

Happy Easter.


Comments

  1. Your approach to intelligent design makes sense to me. I have slowly been evolving away from Darwin's theory towards the concept of intelligent design. You may want to take a look at Ann Coulter's book "Godless" for an excellent discussion on the subject. You may be surprised at how close you and Ann agree on this point.
    Pat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pat its probably the only thing her and I have in common :)

      Delete
    2. Darwin can still work because evaluation on a micro scale certainly fits the model of intelligent design. Darwin himself was a theist by the way and had no problems combining what he observed with his beliefs

      Delete
    3. We come from an era and educational system where Darwin's theory was taught as an assumed fact. Deep thought or analysis, as I presume you have applied to what Darwin wrote, will show that there are multiple flaws in his theory and that upon analysis what is being taught in the schools as Darwin's theory of evolution needs to be reevaluated.
      Pat

      Delete
    4. In the Origin of the Species Darwin writes: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved"...

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

how times change

How times have changed.

Whereas transition was something not to even contemplate for us, here is a young trans person who felt the opposite pressure. She looks and sounds extremely passable but decided it wasn't for her despite the social media presence of young transitioners potentially inspiring her to.

We are all different and I happen to think she's rather a smart cookie as well...


indoctrination

As transgender people, organized religion hasn't really been our friend however on the other hand it has often had little to do with true spirituality. I needed to learn this over time and much of what I was taught growing up was steeped in the judgmental superstition of society instead of what some creator would demand of me.

Regardless of your belief system, you are a child of the universe and have been endowed with uniqueness and goodness of spirit. You have probably never wished anyone ill will and you have tried your best to live within the absurd coordinate system of humanity. Yet somehow belonging to the LGBT community was entirely your fault.

As I have grown older this inherent irrationality became increasingly evident to me. I knew I was a fundamentally good person and yet I was different in a way which was not of my choosing. Hence with this comprehension my self appreciation and esteem grew in proportion.

Religion for me today seems forever trapped in the misinterpretat…

let's please read carefully

This post is prompted by a recent comment I received to one of my older posts and I wanted to address it.

I used to wonder why some transgender people accepted Blanchard’s work until I think I figured out why: they may not have examined it closely enough. They would experience cross gender arousal and then accept it was Autogynephilia without properly understanding what the term meant and what the theory said: it is an invented sexual “illness” which makes people transition. In other words, it is the arousal itself which causes this desire and not a pre-existing gender identity which does not align with birth sex. Of course, Blanchard has no explanation for the origin of his proposed “illness” only that it is a form of sexual deviance.

My counter proposal? we transition despite this arousal. In other words, the transgender identity is pre-existing and the arousal is the result of the mismatching of burgeoning sexual feelings towards females and this misaligned identity; it is not per…