the nature of nature

Most popular level ‘arguments for God’ are based on the ‘art/artisan’ analogy, which is probably dismissed a little to easily at times.  But nature can still quite rightly and easily seen to be God’s creation even if it was not ‘artificiallydesigned.  Artifacts are designed by an artisan, and ‘natural’ things have a mystifying yet lawful and consistent character of having ability to do what they do.  The question is: why is nature like it is?  Even a complete understanding of abiogenesis would still leave the question: how did those things get the power to come together and become living?  Which reminds me of a striking question to put to the so-called ‘design theorists’: Wouldn’t God be smart enough to make a nature that could actually do stuff?

purposeful chance

Succinct and razor sharp as always, James Chastek discusses how so-called ‘blind chance’ events can be used for a purpose – giving two excellent illustrations (coin-toss and cement mixing).

This (for me) completely takes the wind out of the Dawkins-like assurance that big, bad ‘chance’ is an enemy of design and/or God ((and it probably makes all of the effort of ‘design theorists’ a bit unnecessary!?)).