You do understand the concept of Occam's razor? It is a long way from forensic criminology to pre-programmed intelligent molecules.... that's a stretch, even for you.
The forensic scientists have some assistance:
1. They know that people exist
2. They know that people are capable (in a physical and mental sense) of stabbing other people.
3. They are able to gather some evidence to point to the people in question (possibly).
So we have another superficial, shallow and completely flawed analogy. This is what makes me think that you lack some fundamental understanding on a purely philosophical sense of the basis of science.
Oh puhlease.
1) We know agents exist.
2) We know that agents are capable of design.
3) We are able to gather evidence that point to the actions of an agent.
The evidence, say for SETI, is not proof, but nonetheless evidence that leads to further investigation. You assert that you think I lack some fundamental understanding on a purely philosophical sense of the basis of science. I think now is a good time for you to explain why you assert that because quite frankly your philosophical sense of the basis of science is a complete mystery. Waiting...
Evolution doesn't support theism or contradict it, because theism is a system of belief. It has no basis in the natural world.
Bonus point for pointing out the obvious. Then it should be blindingly obvious that evolution doesn't support aheism or contradict it, because atheism is a system of disbelief. It has no basis in the natural world BECAUSE we as humans are social and has the propensity to believe in the existence of other minds BECAUSE it aids in survival. Disbelieving in the existence of other minds is not really helpful if you want to attempt to read the mind of that lion or look at nature and try to understand its purpose... you are going to have to roll over and say crap just happens without a purpose and if that lion eats you... ag shame, more crap, no purpose.
That's why it is obscene to try to force fit medieval belief systems into the concept. Atheists aren't trying to get churches to teach evolution, churches are trying to get schools to teach religion in science class.
No surprise there, atheism does not make you do anything, including reason and the use of logic. It is just a disbelief.
What happens when intelligence (yours), truth (the facts and evidence), and reason contradict intentionality?
That's a real philosophical question.
The day truth, intelligence and reason contradicts intentionality.... wait do you even understand what you just said? Exactly how is anything going to contradict intentionality (yours or anyone elses)? you are able to say to yourself (intentionally) that you are going to type something not?
Reading your posts (and I could be completely wrong), my perception of you is that of a committed Christian who is undergoing a crisis of faith. Your constant argumentative attitude, obsessive compulsive internet research, and denial of clearly stated logical outcomes smacks of someone searching for meaning in a world that doesn't conform to the Christian view. But that's just my opinion.
I think you are wrong and that it might just be your projection about how you feel about your own pointless, self-refuting and negative philosophical outlook of life. I could of course be wrong.
Christianity is not irrelevant in the world of today. In fact, the world can do with less relativistic moral concepts and embrace more idealistic principles taught in the Bible. And what I mean by this is some of the core values Christians (theologically consistent) hold:
Joy
Love
Peace
Patience
Kindness
Goodness
Gentleness
Faithfulness
Self-control
You must love your neighbor as yourself etc.
Some people just love to "quotemine" the Bible but unfortunenately they forget to "quotemine" the parts of the Bible that Christians value most and does not conform to their preconceived notions of the book. Pity really.
We're talking about intentional objects that have no existance other than as intentional objects.
How do you prove the physical existance of such objects?
Mindless jibberish. Mind giving us any proof of the existence of your mind? Even scientific evidence would be nice. Not just jibberish, anecdotal evidence etc. Question for you now is... (paraphrasing you of course) how do you detect something that doesn't exist?
Might I recommend Nassim Taleb's The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Humans have a massive yet unjustified propensity to see meaning and intelligence where there is none. Rather like our propensity to see faces in random visual patterns. You appear to be the victim of the narrative fallacy.
Might I suggest reading it again, this time with a little more insight. Would not want people to think your massive yet unjustified propensity to see meaning and intelligence in your posts might just be as a result of being the victim of your own narrative fallacy.
.
