Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
5
11
15
14
12
8
11
9
7
7
10
8
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Ignorance is no excuse
Open your mind
There is more than naturalism can engage.
Greetings onein6billion:
"Why are you so ignorant about science that you are "glad"? Because your religious sensibilities are offended?"
Religious sensitivities may have accelerated my interest in the debate, but since I have arrived, there appears to be more from both scientific and philosophical perspective that has caught my interest. The naturalistic methodology, like carpentry works fine for what it views. The problem is that doesn't view all of reality. By narrowing its vision, unfortunately, it negates the essence of scientific inquiry. Causality is what we are interested in, wherever the evidence takes us. If we state, de facto, that everything metaphysical is out of bounds, then we shouldn't call it science, or at the very least, we shouldn't deceive ourselves that we are really getting at reality. Perhaps Methodological Naturalism would be the correct name for that type of inquiry, and that is fine as long a we understand its limitations.
"Nope. It is quite true that there is no scientific controversy. There is science and there is anti-science religious nonsense and that does not make a "controversy"."
I don't believe that there is a significant controversy about the concept of natural selection. Darwin deserves a lot of credit for that. There is quite a lot more controversy in the ranks when it comes to the supply of the fittest for the filtering process. Consider for example, the chill from the Neo- Darwinist community when the exclusive role of mutation was questioned, when Lynn Margulis first introduced endosymbiosis.
The truth is that neither the "Chance" involved in the supply, nor the "Necessity" of the filtering process get at the core issue of intelligence operative within them both. God simply allows us, believers and non-believers alike to exercise the methodology to our benefit. Quite compassionate of Him, wouldn't you say?
"In other words, people who do not really understand this non-scientific public relations campaign may be fooled into considering that the scientific Theory of Evolution is not true? Yes, that is the purpose of their public relations campaign."
Well yes, but I would hardly call what the NCSE puts out as neutral in the matter of public relations. In the end, good science will acknowledge its limitations and try to address them. IN the meanwhile, the process needs considerable refinement.
- sologos
September 27, 2008 5:48PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Open your mind and your brains will fall out
"There is more than naturalism can engage."
And that's why it's called "supernatural". But there can never be any evidence that the supernatural actually affects reality.
"The problem is that doesn't view all of reality"
Riiiight. And just what part of reality is not in view? The supernatural? So what?
"If we state, de facto, that everything metaphysical is out of bounds, then we shouldn't call it science, or at the very least, we shouldn't deceive ourselves that we are really getting at reality."
You wish to change the definition of "science" to include the "metaphysical"? That's silly. The word "philosophy" comes to mind, but it's not science.
"get at the core issue of intelligence operative within them both"
Your assertion is not supported by any evidence.
"God simply allows us"
Your assertion is not supported by any evidence.
"I would hardly call what the NCSE puts out as neutral in the matter of public relations."
Of course not - they are on the side of science, not religion.
"good science will acknowledge its limitations and try to address them"
Riiiight. And how can science do more to "address" its limitations, than by simply admitting them? Science is "materialistic" and perhaps that's a "limitation" and science admits it and you wish to change this in some way?
"IN the meanwhile, the process needs considerable refinement."
Nonsense. Science is the process. How do you wish to "refine" the process of science?
- onein6billion
September 28, 2008 9:49AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Which came first, the brain or the mind?
oi6b>>"Open your mind and your brains will fall out."
What value brains without mind?
sologos>>"There is more than naturalism can engage."
oi6b>>"And that's why it's called "supernatural". But there can never be any evidence that the supernatural actually affects reality."
This absolute statement is an excellent illustration of the mistake some naturalists make. Naturalism believes that by ridding itself of supernatural belief, it thereby becomes neutral, rendering its findings objective. Whenever naturalism goes beyond its methodology, it becomes an ideology, not unlike religion. This statement is a belief.
oi6b>>"You wish to change the definition of "science" to include the "metaphysical"? That's silly. The word "philosophy" comes to mind, but it's not science."
Science, it appears as many definitions. I like the original meaning, "knowledge". The experimental method is merely one of its methodologies. It works well, but it requires further refinements if it is to become a tool to discern "knowledge".
sologos>>"get at the core issue of intelligence operative within them both"
oi6b>>"Your assertion is not supported by any evidence."
Only in the same sense that there is no evidence to the contrary. Unless of course there is no such thing as intelligence.
sologos>>"God simply allows us"
oi6b>>"Your assertion is not supported by any evidence."
Which assertion, God, or God allows. If you don't accept the first I am powerless to change your denial.
sologos>>"I would hardly call what the NCSE puts out as neutral in the matter of public relations."
oi6b>>"Of course not - they are on the side of science, not religion."
So non-neutrality is a good thing?
oi6b>>"Riiiight. And how can science do more to "address" its limitations, than by simply admitting them? Science is "materialistic" and perhaps that's a "limitation" and science admits it and you wish to change this in some way?"
Your first question is a good one. I believe that we are attempting to answer that very challenge, mostly prompted, curiously, by the incursion of naturalism into areas it is not yet honed to address. It's a healthy backlash though. As to your second question, I believe you meant to say that MN is materialistic.
oi6b>>"Nonsense. Science is the process. How do you wish to "refine" the process of science?"r
Science HAS processes that have continually been in evolution since its inception.
- sologos
October 1, 2008 7:00PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Neutral? I think not!
"Naturalism believes that by ridding itself of supernatural belief, it thereby becomes neutral,"
What does "neutral" really mean? Science is not "neutral" about the supernatural. It simply disregards it as "non-science". Irrelevant.
"... rendering its findings objective."
Yes. Science explains natural effects with natural causes. If many scientists can replicate the explanation, then it is considered objective. It is considered to properly reflect some aspect of reality.
"I like the original meaning, "knowledge"."
Meaningless. Science is the process of explaining natural effects using natural causes. The explanation is considered "knowledge". But science is the process of arriving at the explanation.
"Which assertion, God, or God allows? If you don't accept the first I am powerless to change your denial."
Both. Of course you cannot change my denial. Your "god" is supernatural and disregarded.
"Science HAS processes"
Ok. And I define "science" to be the sum of all of its "processes". So what? None of the "processes" attempt to address the "supernatural" by definition. If there were a natural process to address the supernatural, then the supernatural would become natural.
So, "intelligent design" wishes to become "science" by trying to use some "processes". But scientists say "no", your processes do not use a natural cause and can never be science.
"This absolute statement is an excellent illustration of the mistake some naturalists make."
No. A "naturalist" always disregards the supernatural. That's the proper definition, so it is not a mistake. The definition of "scientific evidence" means the supernatural is disregarded. So there can never be scientific evidence of the supernatural.
"Whenever naturalism goes beyond its methodology, it becomes an ideology"
Ok. Fine. When has "naturalism gone beyond its methodology" if I define "naturalism" to be the "methodology" used so that natural causes producing natural effects are properly explained?
So. Is "intelligent design" trying to "cheat" by introducing a supernatural element into science? Or is it simply vacuous by saying "I know design when I see it and I see it?"
- onein6billion
October 1, 2008 9:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
who owns science
Onein6billion, You are missing most of what I am saying. Perhaps I haven't expressed myself well.
>>sologos"Naturalism believes that by ridding itself of supernatural belief, it thereby becomes neutral,"
>>>oi6b"What does "neutral" really mean? Science is not "neutral" about the supernatural. It simply disregards it as "non-science". Irrelevant."
>>sologos: By neutral, I don't mean merely neutral as regards supernatural considerations. The progressive tendency for science to rid itself of religious input after Galileo gave its practitioners the mis-perceived notion that they would thus achieve objectivity. The truth is that no endeavor of mankind can ever be neutral in that they carry into every investigation, a worldview that biases not only their conclusion, but even their data. The very questions they ask are biased by this worldview. Bias is carried right through with the use of their level of technology which itself limits this worldview to its limited applications. Most significantly, the paradigm in which they think leads them circuitously to results that merely confirm the premises. I don't mean by this that the universe isn't yielding aspects consistent with a reality, but reality, we are finding, is so multidimensional as to evade our tidy explanations and sweeping generalizations like some of the pronouncements expressed in this discussion. They are thoughtful, but basically they are just another way of stating the party line.
As to objectivity, it is not that their experiments cannot be replicated, but that the same elemental limitations are repeated by those who share this worldview. Same data collected. Same technology appreciating the data, Same limited questions asked of the data. Same acceptable construction of the answers.
A very basic tenet of naturalistic methodology, as it is presently practiced (and focused) is that it sees reality in a dualistic manner. There is what is generally regarded and relegated to the physical, and what is meta-physical. Much of what is now considered to be "physical" rather than metaphysical (like waves in the ulta-violet range) would never have been discovered were it not for some degree of paradigm shift.
Today's "science" cannot see intelligence because it is trying to fit it into a force or energy or matter or other physical category. It doesn't fit because it is more like information. Not that it is not implicated by forces or energy or matter in the laws that govern them, but to extraxt the intelligence requires a refinement of the NM.
It is a major paradigm shift whose emergence can only come about when its time is ready. Like every other paraigm shift, the new technology, the perception of the limitations of the former paradigm, and the conceptual basis for the new paradigm, all have to be in place before it can emerge
- sologos
October 5, 2008 9:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
more on who owns science
>>>oi6b:"Yes. Science explains natural effects with natural causes. If many scientists can replicate the explanation, then it is considered objective. It is considered to properly reflect some aspect of reality.
>>sologos:"Yes, I know. There is no denying that that "aspect" of reality is there. What you see is what you get. Science sees what science views.
oi6b:"Meaningless. Science is the process of explaining natural effects using natural causes. The explanation is considered "knowledge". But science is the process of arriving at the explanation"
sologos: No and yes. No, if by "natural" you mean only what we now agree to be natural. Yes, science is the process of arriving at explanation, not reality.
oi6b:" Of course you cannot change my denial."
sologos: Denial is not a good posture for a scientist. Why not rather go wherever the evidence leads?
sologos:"Science HAS processes"
oi6b:" None of the "processes" attempt to address the "supernatural" by definition. If there were a natural process to address the supernatural, then the supernatural would become natural."
sologos: No, just His fingerprints are natural. But His fingerprints tell us of His nature, VIZ Intelligence.
>>>oi6B:"So, "intelligent design" wishes to become "science" by trying to use some "processes". But scientists say "no", your processes do not use a natural cause and can never be science."
>>sologos: The relativity of time could "never" be science according to the operatives of Newtonian physics
sologos:"This absolute statement is an excellent illustration of the mistake some naturalists make."
>>>oi6B:"No. A "naturalist" always disregards the supernatural. That's the proper definition, so it is not a mistake. The definition of "scientific evidence" means the supernatural is disregarded. So there can never be scientific evidence of the supernatural."
>Sologos: If by disregarding you mean that God has no locus in the experimental method, then you are correct, by present definition. Nevertheless, science has much to gain from listening to theologians, and vice versa.
sologos:"Whenever naturalism goes beyond its methodology, it becomes an ideology"
>>oi6b:"Ok. Fine. When has "naturalism gone beyond its methodology" if I define "naturalism" to be the "methodology" used so that natural causes producing natural effects are properly explained?"
>>sologos:Essentially when its practitioners say that the universe and all its workings can be fully explained without God.
>>>oi6b:"So. Is "intelligent design" trying to "cheat" by introducing a supernatural element into science? Or is it simply vacuous by saying "I know design when I see it and I see it?"
>>sologos: To try to demonstrate logically that nature reflects both intelligence and design is not cheating even if it could legitimately demonstrate the Designer. As far as I can see, however, the attempt to fit into science rather entails showing the Designer's characteristics in nature.To simply state "I know design whenIse it, and I see it" is indeed scientifically vacuous
- sologos
October 5, 2008 9:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Round and round we go - but now I'm done
"a worldview that biases not only their conclusion, but even their data."
Riiiiight. The "biased worldview" canard. Well, you have your reality and I have mine and I prefer my biased reality to yours. Because mine has cellphones and doctors and medicine and cars and ... and yours has churches and miracles and the power of prayer and life after death.
"but reality is so multidimensional as to evade our tidy explanations"
Well, please explain it to us with a proper scientific theory and go collect your Nobel Prize.
"A very basic tenet of naturalistic methodology, as it is presently practiced is that it sees reality in a dualistic manner." ... "would never have been discovered" ... "Today's "science" cannot see intelligence" ... "because it is more like information" ... "but to extract the intelligence requires a refinement of the NM"
Riiight. I will now disregard your opinions the same way science disregards the supernatural - as non-scientific nonsense. "Refinement of the NM" - that's hilarious.
"It is a major paradigm shift whose emergence can only come about when its time is ready"
ROTFLOL Where's that link to "how to recognize a kook"? Not quite right, but close:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_ (person)
"No, if by "natural" you mean only what we now agree to be natural."
Weird. "Natural" does or does not mean "what we now agree to be natural"? One of us is playing games and it's not me!
"Yes, science is the process of arriving at explanation, not reality."
You wish to have other explanations besides the ones that describe reality? Silly.
"Why not rather go wherever the evidence leads?"
You failed to use the word "scientific" in front of the word "evidence". By definition, there can never be any scientific evidence that leads to supernatural intelligence or design. It's a contradiction by definition.
"Nevertheless, science has much to gain from listening to theologians, and vice versa."
I don't care if theologians listen to science as long as they don't try to interfere with the proper teaching of biology to 9th grade public high school students the way the creationist dentist is trying to do here in Texas.
I don't think scientists should waste their time listening to theologians. What could a theologian possibly say that could be of interest to science? Exact specifications for recognizing miracles?
"Essentially when its practitioners say that the universe and all its workings can be fully explained without God."
Round and round we go. I say science always disregards the supernatural. So how would scientists use "God" to help "fully explain" the universe? That's silly nonsense. When a scientist finds something that cannot be fully explained (yet), he says "I don't know (yet)", not "I need a supernatural agent to explain this." One answer leads to further research - the other leads to "I give up."
"To try to demonstrate logically that nature reflects both intelligence and design is not cheating"
Well, there is no such logical demonstration and it seems clear to anyone with half a brain that "nature" does not "reflect" either "intelligence" or "design" (as if those words actually meant anything in this context). So, if it's not cheating, it's just a massive failure. The problem with your logic is that you continue to try to mix "nature" with supernatural "intelligence and design". This is a contradiction. And this is the fundamental reason why all of the attempts by the "intelligent design" propagandists to make a positive case for design have failed.
"showing the Designer's characteristics in nature"
Meaningless. This is a description which might or might not reflect reality. Take your personal choice. "I see the designer's characteristics" or "I don't see any characteristics that might indicate a designer". There's only one Earth and only one universe. And I do not see any characteristics of a designer in the nature of either.
But there's no explanation, so there's no science here. Why did this designer do this instead of that? When and how did this designer do this or that? Perhaps you prefer "theistic evolution"? The designer created this universe 14 billion years ago and set the clockwork mechanism (physical laws) in motion and everything happened naturally after that. Well, that's not science and it's probably not satisfying to the billions of religious believers around this natural world.
I certainly hope I'm dead and gone before your "paradigm shift" fries my brain as it has yours.
- onein6billion
October 6, 2008 7:58AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In the end it all about Faith isn't it
--Sologos
I don't believe that there is a significant controversy about the concept of natural selection. Darwin deserves a lot of credit for that. There is quite a lot more controversy in the ranks when it comes to the supply of the fittest for the filtering process. Consider for example, the chill from the Neo- Darwinist community when the exclusive role of mutation was questioned, when Lynn Margulis first introduced endosymbiosis.
--
Cool, now the claim is the arrival of variation. Yes, Margulis' claims were received with scepticism, and it was through hard scientific work that she managed to support her claims and science eventually accepted them. No similarities at all with ID which proposes nothing. As to the supply of the fittest, the issue of the 'arrival of the fittest' is of significant interest right now to science, what do you suggest has ID contributed to this?
The answer is simple: Nothing
--Sologis
The truth is that neither the "Chance" involved in the supply, nor the "Necessity" of the filtering process get at the core issue of intelligence operative within them both. God simply allows us, believers and non-believers alike to exercise the methodology to our benefit. Quite compassionate of Him, wouldn't you say?
--
This is a misleading statement, there is no scientific issue of intelligence operative within both, in fact, science does allow God to be hidden behind these natural processes, it remains silent on such. Let's not pretend though that this is a scientific position.
- PvM
September 28, 2008 10:26AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Faith does its part.
PvM>>"Cool, now the claim is the arrival of variation. Yes, Margulis' claims were received with scepticism, and it was through hard scientific work that she managed to support her claims and science eventually accepted them. No similarities at all with ID which proposes nothing. As to the supply of the fittest, the issue of the 'arrival of the fittest' is of significant interest right now to science, what do you suggest has ID contributed to this?
The answer is simple: Nothing"
Self-organizing systems reflect constraints, as well as the appearance of randomness. It is significant that the final product itself is intelligent. That a stochastic process can be so fruitful is, itself, a testimony to the intelligence that directs such randomness. I don't know what the DI has contributed to this because I have not thouroughly examined their work.
If I had to take a theoretical stab at it, perhaps this might be one approach. Look at intelligence and design where we can most likely identify it, It seems that in order to distinguish intelligence from "dumb" physical processes, one must first decide whether intelligence even exists in humans, and if so, what it is that distinguishes it from non-intelligence. Likewise for design. What characterizes or demonstrates premeditated intent from pure accident at the only level we can reliably distinguish it, the human level. As obvious as these questions sound, they are actually non-givens. Once that can be agreed upon, it would not be that hard (relatively speaking) to set up a prospective study with rapidly reproducing organisms showing detectable micro-evolution.
PvM>>"This is a misleading statement, there is no scientific issue of intelligence operative within both, in fact, science does allow God to be hidden behind these natural processes, it remains silent on such. Let's not pretend though that this is a scientific position."
Let's instead pretend that intelligence can never be detected? Is there a scientific issue that excludes the operation of intelligence? Your statement reflects your belief. You probably won't find it. Your methodology has infected your worldview. You are a good apologist for naturalism. I prefer to see reality, metaphysical and physical as related. Separate disciplines are certainly fruitful but both science and theology teach us that a bigger picture adds a new dimension. Is there no value to that? Theology and Science should talk again, neither fearing.
- sologos
October 1, 2008 8:38PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Folly, thy name is sologos
"That a stochastic process can be so fruitful is, itself, a testimony to the intelligence that directs such randomness."
Nonsense. "Intelligence directs randomness"??? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
"one must first decide whether intelligence even exists in humans"
In your case, I'm not so sure. But your definition of "intelligence" does not seem to match mine.
"Let's instead pretend that intelligence can never be detected?"
Category error. He said "God" and you switched to "intelligence". That's not intelligent. So your lack of intelligence has been detected.
"What characterizes or demonstrates premeditated intent from pure accident at the only level we can reliably distinguish it, the human level?"
Hilarious. Members of the jury - I pointed the gun at him and pulled the trigger and he accidentally died. It's not my fault - it was an accident. Besides, I was angry and I think maybe he stole something from me last year. This has nothing to do with " intelligent design ".
"it would not be that hard (relatively speaking) to set up a prospective study with rapidly reproducing organisms showing detectable micro-evolution."
I recommend that you read some science of the 20th century. There are 20 different ways that bacteria can become immune to penicillin!
"Separate disciplines are certainly fruitful but both science and theology teach us that a bigger picture adds a new dimension."
Science is a discipline and theology is wishful thinking. Ne'er the twain shall meet.
"Theology and Science should talk again, neither fearing."
Hilarious. It's true that science has nothing to fear from theology. But also nothing to learn. It's true that religion has a lot to fear from science. Today's quotes: "Reason is the greatest enemy
that faith has ..." "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." Martin Luther
- onein6billion
April 10, 2009 12:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
WE ARE NOT ACTUALLY COMMUNICATING
I am afraid that your answer, though interesting, has nothing to do with my points. I will try to clarify my points.
onein6billion>> Nonsense. "Intelligence directs randomness"??? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
Order can subsume randomness. At the individual level of every coin toss, the result will be completely random,but the more you toss the coin, the closer it gets to an orderly 50-50. At a molecular level, gas molecules in a jar are colliding randomly, but at the gross level we have precise and orderly relationships between pressure, volume, and heat. In Chaos Theory, order with intelligible properties universally arises out of chaos.Lawfullness thus countenances randomness. Either there is something out there in reality that corresponds to our intelligent inquiry into its orderliness, or we are simply dreaming that we are somehow manipulating reality with our experiments. I think you would agree that the former exists in a one to one relationship. What you likely do not agree with is that intelligible order assumes an Intelligent Authorship. This is not something you have deduced, but it follows from some very basic assumptions you hold to be foundational in your world view. The notion that randomness can yet exist at some level, never frustrating the ultimate purpose of any given system, furthermore attests to an intelligence far beyond ours.
oi6b>> In your case, I'm not so sure. But your definition of "intelligence" does not seem to match mine.
I'm sticking with Webster:"The skilled use of reason" Seems to imply purpose to me.
oi6b>>> Category error. He said "God" and you switched to "intelligence". That's not intelligent. So your lack of intelligence has been detected.
PM was not,in fact, disengaging God and intelligence, or at least that was not what he was addressing at this point, but rather making a point that there is no scientific way to discern whether either was at work.
oi6b>> Hilarious. Members of the jury - I pointed the gun at him and pulled the trigger and he accidentally died. It's not my fault - it was an accident. Besides, I was angry and I think maybe he stole something from me last year. This has nothing to do with " intelligent design ".
Here is where there is a major disconnect. Nevertheless, you have, unwittingly, made my point. In asking that question, I am showing that premeditated intent can be reliably distinguished from pure accident. If the distinction can be made at the human level, then perhaps it can be made for any given system in the universe.
oi6b I recommend that you read some science of the 20th century. There are 20 different ways that bacteria can become immune to penicillin!
Yes, but my point is that, if one could agree on what distinguishes intent from accident, one could set up a prospective experiment, seeking to distinguish the two, predicting the outcome based on what an Intelligent Designer might have in mind. The fact that accident (randomness) occurs at some level doesn't obviate intent, at another level.
oi6b>> Science is a discipline and theology is wishful thinking. Ne'er the twain shall meet.
OK, now I know what your opinion is.
oi6b Hilarious. It's true that science has nothing to fear from theology. But also nothing to learn. It's true that religion has a lot to fear from science. Today's quotes: "Reason is the greatest enemy
that faith has ..." "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." Martin Luther
Theology has nothing whatsoever to fear from empirical science done properly. The same Mind is behind both. Science, like Theology works from foundations that are assumed not deduced, and finds its very legitimization in the notion that there is an orderly and intelligible universe. The two are complementary rather than supplementary. When Science points out that the earth revolves around the sun, it corrects an erroneous hermeneutic used by the midieval Church. When Theology states that there must be a "beginning", it calls into question an uncaused universe, reminding Science that causality is its central explanatory imperative, and thus holding it accountable.
- sologos
April 29, 2009 11:06PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Folly, thy name is sologos squared
"The notion that randomness can yet exist at some level, never frustrating the ultimate purpose of any given system, furthermore attests to an intelligence far beyond ours."
I think your opinion is nonsense. Why shouldn't "randomness" "frustrate" the "ultimate purpose" of "any given system"? Lots of people are killed by automobile accidents and earthquakes and tsunamis. If they failed to reproduce as much as they could, perhaps their "ultimate purpose" (allowing their genes to continue) was "frustrated". All of your silly words are ill-defined.
"I am showing that premeditated intent can be reliably distinguished from pure accident."
Well, maybe I don't want you on my jury after all. Perhaps you think that there is no "gray" between "accident" and "premeditated intent". I am not a lawyer, but I think there are "degrees". "Murder in the first degree", negligent homicide, self-defense, etc.
"If the distinction can be made at the human level, then perhaps it can be made for any given system in the universe."
I say it can't always be made at the human level and perhaps is not good enough for evolution versus "non-evolution". So your statement is nonsense.
"if one could agree on what distinguishes intent from accident"
And if you can't, you're wasting your time. So, how can this possibly apply to evolution? That bacterium "intended" to mutate to become resistant to penicillin? God "intended" it? Or mutations really are an "accident"?
"The fact that accident (randomness) occurs at some level doesn't obviate intent, at another level."
I think your opinion is nonsense.
"The same Mind is behind both."
Your statement is meaningless. Define "Mind". Is your definition "natural"?
"The two are complementary rather than supplementary."
I think your opinion is nonsense.
"When Theology states that there must be a "beginning""
Why should a religion assume that? Why not a "steady state" universe? Astronomers considered that as a possibility for a while. Religion has assumptions generated from "thin air". Why should any such statements have the slightest relevance to science ?
"it calls into question an uncaused universe"
This is a philosophical question at present. Perhaps it will become a scientific question a million years from now. Religion has nothing to say about this question. Religious opinions are irrelevant.
"causality is its central explanatory imperative"
Well, natural effects have natural causes. How can that possibly be affected by or related to religion? Science is natural and religion is supernatural and ne'er the twain shall meet.
- onein6billion
May 5, 2009 11:22AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.