Fathers’ Rights

A Chicago Blog

Listen UP on Intelligent Design

Posted by madcap on February 24, 2008

The bottom line in this debate is that random, unguided natural processes accounting for all of existence is far from scientific fact. Science has in no way killed God. In the realm of physics we have the totally open possibility that some sort of “intelligence” has “fine tuned” the cosmos. One can come to this conclusion without invoking Christianity. With recent findings in biology, we find the same sort of incomprehensible complexity that in fact has fingerprints of some sort of designer. For me, this is a matter of common sense rather than religious dogma. Science, like all man made institutions, runs the risk of hubris.

I think that “hidden” agendas on both sides of the debate distort the real issues and questions at hand. No doubt people of faith, unforutinatly many fundamental Christians, drive the arguments for design. Often these folks do more damage and disservice than bring legitimacy to the cause.

But on the other side, many atheist use science to prop up their personal belief system. Fundamentalism is a two edged sword in this debate. Many scientist have a prior commitment to the non existence of God that is just as powerful as some Christians commitment to the literal interpretation of Genesis. Often gay science turns a blind eye to what their own evidence points toward.

From Jay Richards, Proud Obstacles, p. 32

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises. In spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Also see:

From Darwin to Hitler:Ideas Have Consequences

Unlocking the Mysteries of Life.

4 Responses to “Listen UP on Intelligent Design”

  1. bobcu said

    “With recent findings in biology, we find the same sort of incomprehensible complexity that in fact has fingerprints of some sort of designer.”

    Designer? You mean magician, right? You want to invoke magic. Why? Don’t you think it’s childish to invoke magic?

    incomprehensible complexity? Incomprehensible to you maybe, but not to a biologist.

    You are trying to make god-did-it look scientific. That’s being dishonest.

    “atheist use science to prop up their personal belief system.”

    You think not believing in the sky fairy is a personal belief system? I call it not being gullible and insane.

  2. madcap said

    What I am saying is that many scientist are closed minded and arrogant.I also notice many in the gay science camp to be bitter and hostile. I don’t know who to fear more, the preacher sending all to hell, or the gay scientist sending dissenters to the asylum. With what little we actually know about the universe, to claim the debate is over, except for the “insane” is pure rhetoric, not science. This is a personal opinion motivated by personal belief.
    I never once invoked mythology. What I said was that when I have been presented with the discoveries of science, I have not been given an acceptable explanation for the cause, or complexities of the universe. From the fine tuning of the four forces, to the mega information found in the cell, science falls short of accounting for this through natural causes. Many mysteries still remain. To claim otherwise is actually quite amusing to me.

  3. bobcu said

    gay science camp? gay scientist? Are you actually talking about sexual preferences? What does that have to do with anything?

    Many scientists are close minded? Why? Because they refuse to invoke what you call a designer and what everyone else calls a magic man?

    “Many scientist have a prior commitment to the non existence of God…”

    So what? What has God have to do with science? Even religious scientists don’t use God for anything. They know invoking God has never solved any problem. God isn’t used by scientists for the same reason God isn’t used by garbage men. God has nothing to do with garbage collection and God has nothing to do with science.

    No competent biologist, whether or not he is religious, would never in a million years say “With recent findings in biology, we find the same sort of incomprehensible complexity that in fact has fingerprints of some sort of designer.”

    This designer idea is extremely anti-science. Can you imagine a biologist saying a designer did it? He would laughed at for a good reason. It would like saying “Here a miracle occurred.” That’s not science. That’s childish magic.

  4. madcap said

    “Are you actually talking about sexual preferences? What does that have to do with anything?”

    Sexual Preferences? What does that have to do with Nietzsche?

    Nietzsche’s Warning:Madman in The Marketplace
    https://thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/nietzsches-warningmilitant-atheism/

    “Can you imagine a biologist saying a designer did it?”

    Well, yes. Watch this.

    Unlocking the Mysteries of Life.
    https://thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/unlocking-the-mystries-of-life/

    “What has God have to do with science?”

    Everything when gay science makes statements of their personal belief about God. At that point gay science begins to perpetrate an intellectual swindle. It has stepped outside its field into another field of study and discovery. Some people drink the cool-aid.

    “In spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes.”

    Science points toward “something else.” Bottom line. The refusal to not allow consideration of design is NOT because of evidence, but PERSONAL belief. By refusal I mean more than not allowing objections to Darwin into the classroom. It is the chastisement and characterization of those who would consider God to be, as you said yourself, “insane.” I find this sort of mindset to be dangerous.

    “This designer idea is extremely anti-science. ”

    No; it’s “other-science.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: