You have misunderstood my position because you haven’t told me why the coin toss simplification is a narrow minded, inexplicable reason to have the opinion that guided evolution is more probable than unguided evolution. Saying I am bonkers for believing in God is kind of prejudicial. Don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to call people narrow minded on this thread, if I have already apologised for calling cofty narrow minded?
Do you think all people that believe in God are bonkers? Do you know any believers that are not bonkers?
Personally I think Dawkins is bonkers.
Hi Kate,
I think you need to re-read my post. I make no comment on the coin toss as (a) I needed to digest it and (b) I was trying to distil things back down to the nub of your position. Having read your post several times along with the comments made by others all I can see is that coin toss example does not really correlate to what science (Soai's experiment and further research) demonstrates happens. If I understand the chemistry then the results of the autocatalysis is repeatable. It's not the same as randomly throwing a coin and it landing heads up in the patterns you illustrate.
Regardless, my point was that even after presenting the coin toss example you were not prepared to say "this is evidence that God is guiding this". You still maintain a position that the l/h nature of the molecules is simply "more probably" guided by God than the result of purely naturalistic processes. Not only that you then put the definition of "God" into some woolly cloud of it being "Sam's God".
Soai's research showed there is a naturalistic answer to the question of l/h bias. On that basis a reasonable position to take could be:
"This evidence shows there is no requirement for external influence by a third party (e.g. a deity) to produce the l/h bias."
This is very open minded. You could add:
"This evidence supports all the other evidence that has been gathered over the years that the natural world around us is the result of the interaction of matter and energy in harmony with the laws of physics, chemistry and biology known to humans."
This again is open in the sense it does not support or deny the existence of a deity, just accepts that there is no need for a deity to come along and make things happen.
If you want to believe in God then the above statements do not conflict with that.
What you do, however, is then add:
"Regardless of the research supporting purely naturalistic means to explain l/h bias and that this evidence is in harmony with the overwhelming majority of research out there I believe the l/h bias is, on balance, more probably guided by a deity."
Sadly this is not even your original position. From the OP your position was "I believe the l/h bias is, on balance, more probably guided by a deity" with zero explanation of where you came to that conclusion.
When pushed to explain why, we entered a spiral of obfuscation where you kept referring back to the OP.
When pushed by Cofty for you opinion on Soai's research you eventually seemed to accept it but even now you present an example in the coin toss that seems to me to be comparing apples and oranges.
You are not prepared to stand by your statements as presenting evidence for a deity. Rather you just attempt to deflect questioning by essentially saying "I can't explain what a deity is, at what level it operates, what it's purposes might be. It's just something in my head that I think must be there."
It's not about proving or disproving God. It's not about dis-respecting beliefs. Nowhere have I said anything about this and the existence of God. All it is about is the intellectual process one goes through to come to conclusions about life and our place in it. Right now, in spite of the science demonstrating a solution to the question, your only conclusion is "God dunnit" with no logical reason for that conclusion.
I am not saying your belief in a God is bonkers. I am saying that your position and conclusion is bonkers as there is zero logic to it. You could maintain an open mind on the reason for l/h bias without compromising your belief in a deity. This would maintain some credibility in your reasoning ability.
The only way I can try and understand why you maintain the position is that somewhere along the line you've been convinced that the l/h bias is an open and shut case for the involvement of a deity without considering evidence like Soai's research and now cannot accept that this subject is actually yet another solved puzzle (c.f. flagellum) even though there is a middle ground position that means you make no conclusion other than a simple acceptance of the science.
To that end it is narrow-minded and you are doing yourself an intellectual injustice.
