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.
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
Tbh “materialists” was worse. Really pigeon-holing the complexity of the human relationships with science, spirituality, and the journey we are all on in understanding this existence.
1
2
And I don’t mean this to beat up on you after you apologized. It’s more of a challenge because I see you as an absolute leader at challenging normative thinking and rarely see you use limiting labels to reduce others. Usually, I have seen you do the opposite
1
2
Replying to @Therealdeal2244
I don’t understand. I’m simply saying I can’t look at the intricate colors on let’s say certain flowers and think there’s a strictly material explanation. I don’t think evolution contradicts God but I also don’t think God contradicts evolution.

Apr 5, 2021 · 4:52 AM UTC

3
6
Replying to @marwilliamson @Therealdeal2244
I thought that for many years. Just a thought, wouldn't it be that much more amazing if it were only done through the mechanics of evolution without some supernatural guiding hand?
1
1
No. Not to me.
2
Replying to @marwilliamson @Therealdeal2244
Have you heard of Occam's Razor? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%… Evolution doesn't prove God doesn't exist, it just renders God unnecessary for the wide diversity of species we can observe. What results of Evolution do you think required God, that couldn't have occurred without God?
Replying to @marwilliamson
I think that’s awesome and I wouldn’t consider phrasing that thinking as spiritualist and “nothing more than” wishful thinking. Perhaps I’m reading in to it a bit but I found the phrasing to be a frustrating characterization of an atheist/agnostic belief system.
1