It always amazes me to hear a materialist arguing for darwinism.
It's like someone who can't stomach the idea of a Leonardo da Vinci. He explains the Mona Lisa by breaking the painting down to the individual brush-stroke level. Once we understand that there are paint molecules, and self-organizing canvas, and once we realize that paint can attach itself to canvas, drop by drop, what need is there to consider where the paint and canvas came from, whether there was a brush, and, if there was, who was wielding it? Sure, it's beautiful. But that's just a lucky by-product. Sure, it "looks" designed, but that's another phantom. Leonardo simply isn't needed, and anyone who wants to cling to the notion of a designer is anti-science, superstitious, and, frankly, stupid. "You say there was a Leonardo: prove it." I hear this all the time. How can one prove the self-evident? How can one prove that which requires no proof?
Which is more exquisitely and wonderfully made: the Mona Lisa, or the person who was Leonardo's subject? Are you really willing to say that a two-dimensional paint image of a person must be the product of mind, will, and personality, but the person whose image is painted on the canvas, a billion times more complex and valuable, cannot be?
According to the materialist, the answer is an emphatic "yes".
He who sits in the heavens, the One who hides himself from the "wise and prudent", surely cracks a smile.
No comments:
Post a Comment