I guess you would rather talk theology & religion rather than the logical case for ID. That's fine if you'd like.
It is a waste of time to discus ID, it is nonsense. But there still needs to be a basis for ID which is a creator/god. You MUST first establish that an "intelligent agency" is behind ID before we can even begin to discus ID as being possibly valid. To just skip over establishing this base entity is dishonest.
The statement you made is way off the mark about the bible and even religion for the most part (they are not synonymous).
Off YOUR mark you mean. I have heard believers speak and put forth those ideas. So it doesn't matter if you personally do not accept them. I am addressing nonsense I have heard. As I stated before.
Don't know how familiar you are with the bible but here's the deal about 'the Law' in biblical context. The Law (I assume you mean the 10 commandments) was given to Moses at the request of the people who were following him, not God. People at that time were in the opposite state of mind as today; they were terrified with some of the events surrounding God's direct dealing with man (floods, plagues, fire from heaven destroying cities, etc.), they were afraid and told Moses to give them a simple list of rules and they would follow them (and they were given the chance).
They were given the chance twice but you are going to step up a contradiction in the following statement.
That was man's idea, never God's.
If it was never God's idea, then why did he entertain Moses? Why didn't he suggest something else? Why didn't he inform Moses that it would fail? Why did he go through this whole thing twice? There wasn't just one set of "laws" or commandments, but it was done twice.
The first time Moses returns with the tablets and shatters them out of anger when he sees the people worshiping an idol. I have objections to this story but I won't go into it here, just establish that he first attempted to bring the laws back to the people and got pissed off and broke them. Then he goes back up the mountain and gets another set.
God entertains him twice.
Your suggestion of empathy is more in line with the original plan that his Son came later to make clear to man. It's all in the book if it matters to you.
Yes but there is so much garbage in the bible it dilutes and covers this idea of human empathy. So it wastes and washes over the idea. The idea also falls on deaf ears when on one hand the bible suggests murdering is okay. This trumps the idea of human empathy. So you set up a state of confusion.
God kills every first born in Egypt.
God kills all beings except Noahs family.
God kills everyone living in sodom and gomorrah.
God commends the murdering of other people by his chosen people.
So it washes over this idea of human empathy. If god can't have empathy for humans then why should humans have empathy for other humans? Just because he is god, he is allowed to ignore this? NO he should be setting the example.
Don't even attempt to suggest that Jesus set the example, because even that is nonsense. Jesus curses the Roman who stabs him in the side with his spear to roam the Earth for ever. He will never die. He is plagued with torment that he will never die. That isn't empathy.
PS: I was really hoping you would tell me if you were serious about life not being complex, etc. You kind of made my jaw drop on that one.
Because I think the statement is one of perspective. We like to suggest that life is complex but really its just a culmination of several different parts all working together. These parts work both independently and in support but without actually trying to or wanting to.
How much agency do you have over your body? You don't need to think about breathing or beating your heart. You don't need to be involved in digesting your food. You don't need to be involved in the production of bone or muscle replacement. You are not involved in any of this. You don;t even control the function of your muscles. Instead you just request the movement and the signals are sent out to your muscles to move and if the proper chemicals are there to allow movement then you move. You can't control it if these things are not in place. Sever the communication and you can no longer move a limb.
These are cells, communicating with other cells, and more cells, so on and so on and so on. A network of cells, nothing more than that. It's not complex.
If you build an object out of lego, it doesn't make it complex. They are still simple pieces, the only difference is they are attached to each other in certain ways giving the illusion of a complex object. No.
The same is true about the universe. Everything is made up of atoms. These atoms come together to form chemical bonds. These bonds can form chemical linked chains. Or they can clump together to form rocks, asteroids, comets, moons and planets or stars. But all they are, is a bunch of atoms all clumped together. This isn't complexity.
It's just simple parts that are combined. The same is true about the eye. It isn't a complex organ. It's just made up of simple parts working together. That isn't complexity. The lenses of the eye don't know about any other part of the eye, the cells are just a lens.
Like a brick building, you pile up bricks and they produce what we call a building. But really it's just a particular piling up of bricks that we call it a building. It's not complex. It's just a pile of bricks.