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
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 #FlatEarth vibes
Replying to @marwilliamson
What Thomas Nagel called “reductionist euphoria.” It does seem to leave out an explanation for how physical processes in the brain turn into mental phenomena. There is an explanatory gap that doesn’t seem bridgeable with reduction. Perhaps substance dualism will make a comeback.
Replying to @marwilliamson
How does whatever your alternative hypothesis posits act in the physical world to produce the diversity seen in nature?
Replying to @marwilliamson
There is no design. It’s been shown that complex structures form spontaneously when particles coalesce and cool.
Replying to @marwilliamson
Why can't existence be enough?
Replying to @marwilliamson
divine intelligence or intelligent design?
Replying to @marwilliamson
With respect Marianne, after studying basic plant biology, it makes sense how these beautiful organisms were created. It's not simple, it's very complex, but there's always a trait or characteristic that can be explained rather than by happenstance from a benevolent designer.
Replying to @marwilliamson
This is why Liebniz disagreed with Newton
Replying to @marwilliamson
They emerged from the same place as hate, discrimination, racism, slavery, greed, etc. The un-examined human condition.