To all the materialists who think the incredible designs of nature - including on fish, birds, flowers and even caterpillars - emerge from nothing more than the most reductionist scientific evolutionary forces, I joyously disagree with you.

Apr 5, 2021 · 4:04 AM UTC

177
136
88
1,697
I shouldn’t have used the word “reductionist” that way. The people criticizing me on that one are right. My bad. Sorry.
26
7
1
385
Replying to @marwilliamson
I'm a materialist but I agree with many of your positions on issues. I can't say for absolute sure but I think everything is just atoms flying around. This reality is just the way the cookie crumbled so to speak. I think spirituality is important part of being human though.
2
Replying to @marwilliamson
You’re welcome to your disagreement and views👍 However, I’d recommend learning about how amazing the forces of nature are and how they work. It is absolutely mind-blowing. All those beautiful creatures you post? The progression as to how they formed can be seen and studied💕🥰👌
1
3
Replying to @marwilliamson
Are you saying that patterns/complexity cannot arise from the interaction between systems? They have to be designed by a consciousness? I think that is more reductive. To throw our hands up and say "we don't understand how this works, some omnipotent thing must have made it"
2
58
Replying to @marwilliamson
I agree. We’re more likely a simulation or a purposefully, designed smart ape by a previous visitor THOUSANDS of years ago. Prior to the great deluge, like the Ancient Sumerians wrote of and with some context in those clay tablets.
2
2
Replying to @marwilliamson
very simple mathematics can lead to incredibly complex patterns youtube.com/watch?v=pCpLWbHV…
1
2
Replying to @marwilliamson
I’d like for you and @RichardDawkins to have a talk about this.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Great to advertise her ignorance. Look up D'Arcy Thompson's work on growth and form. It's only over 100 years old.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Why can’t both be true? If God is Love, and Love guides evolution-then the mistake is defining the two as different or separate. Loves influence on evolution is God’s. We can insist on Love’s influence in our lives, therefore God’s. We can also defy Love’s (God’s) influence.
4