Posted on 01/23/2014 9:19:28 AM PST by Heartlander
“not necessarily true” = it might be true or not true.
I know what I’m referring to, the Monolith. You are trying to conflate that one item to the whole Moon Phobos being an alien artifact in the same vein as Hoaxland’s imagination. It is you who are trying to twist what I wrote, to mean something I never said. But that is par for your methodology, your twisting, deceiving methodology.
OK, settle down. Tell me about the “Monolith”. What is it? Who put it there and why?
Really? Ya think?
Really, really. It adds to the mystery, the sense of the unknown.
You know that, dear Heartlander; I know that.
But try to explain that to a materialist who has already decided that all this "evidence of a designing intelligence" is something to ignore in principle. ID is ruled off the reservation, because in the minds of its critics, it can only mean (bottom line) an overt or covert search for "proof" of the existence of a creator god.
The creator god, of course, is in their minds merely a primitive superstition of ignorant mankind. To blast the ignorant out of their complacency, they love to point to the absurdity of "special creation," wherein the creator god is presumed to have made all things, as James S. Trefil puts it, "laboriously, piece by piece."
But it seems to me that "special creation" might rather be understood as referring to a particular, unrepeatable event that initiates, ex nihilo, an evolving Cosmos from a singular beginning of space and time, of "matter," of life and mind, of the basic organizational rules physical and moral that maintain the Order of this Creation over time. Thus to me, the Big Bang/Singularity/Inflationary Universe model does not seem inconsistent with the idea of the creative Word (Logos) of God in the Beginning.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.But design theory per se is really not involved in such disputes, which are philosophical and theological at bottom. It's just trying to explain the accumulating evidence that the universe really cannot be exhaustively explained on the premises of materialist reductionism and mechanism. Life and mind (consciousness) seem to resist explanation on these terms.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. — John 1:1–4
But hey, that's just me, just my view from where I stand. People see what they see from their own particular vantage point. But as Einstein reminds us, the physical laws are the same for all observers, regardless of where they stand.
I can see the other POV — the materialist one premised in reductionism. Here's James Trefil again [in The Moment of Creation: Big Bang Physics from before the First Millisecond to the Present Universe, 1983]:
We stand, in fact, on the verge of the ultimate triumph of the reductionist idea. Within a few years, we may very well realize that if we probe deeply enough, we will find a universe that is the ultimate in simplicity and beauty. All of the apparent complexity we see will be understood in terms of an underlying system in which particles of one type interact with each other through one kind of force. If this sort of theory is actually developed, it will be the culmination of a philosophical quest that began over two millennia ago in the Greek Ionian colonies....Thus the noble aspiration. But does it hold water? Certainly Trefil takes "simplicity" and "beauty" very seriously. But on the other hand, what in materialist reductionism can account for this, his particular personal predilection for/attraction to simplicity and beauty? And by what criterion are they to be defined?
The "instinct" for simplicity and beauty would seem to me to be irreducible to materialist terms. Thus I "hit the wall" of the same problem that keeps the design theorists up at night. (So to speak.)
Notwithstanding, I highly recommend Trefil's valuable book. He strikes me as an intellectually honest man. Responding to the hypothetical question "What About God?" (not the best-formulated question I've ever seen), he writes:
When I talk to my friends about the fact that the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed relentlessly back toward the moment of creation, I am often asked about the religious implications of the new physics. That there are such implications is obvious, particularly in the speculations about how the universe came into existence in the first place. Physicists normally feel very uncomfortable with this sort of question, since it cannot be answered by the normal methods of our science [Trefil is professor of physics at U-VA]. For what it is worth, I will give my own personal views on the subject here, with the caveat that these views may not be shared by other scientists.Just some "grist for the mill!" Must leave it there for now.
It seems to me that the unease people feel when they think about the sort of scientific advance implicit in the new physics arises from the notion that applying the techniques of science to the creation of the universe is somehow encroaching on terrain that has been staked out by religion....
...No matter how deeply we probe into any scientific subject, we will always find something unexplained and undefined....
...It now appears that our new discoveries of the laws that govern the nature of elementary particles may allow us to push the frontiers back to the very creation of the universe itself. This does not, however, alter the fact that there is a frontier. All it does is transfer our attention from the material form of the universe to the laws that govern its behavior. [Ed. note: Jeepers, that's what I thought design theory was doing....] I can hear a twenty-first century philosopher saying, "Very well, we agree that the universe exists because of the laws of physics. But who created those laws? [Ed. note: a bit of "question-begging" there IMHO; for we need not stipulate a "who" in advance; hypothetically, it could be a "what" {though ultimately, I personally doubt it}] And even if, as some physicists have suggested, the laws of physics we discover are the only laws that are logically consistent with each other (and therefore the only laws that could exist), our philosopher would ask, "Who made the laws of logic?"
My message, then, to those who feel that science is overstepping its bounds when it probes the early universe is simple: don't worry. No matter how far the boundaries are pushed back, there will always be room both for religious faith and a religious interpretation of the physical world.
For myself, I feel much more comfortable with the concept of a God who is clever enough to devise laws of physics that make the existence of our marvelous universe inevitable than I do with the old-fashioned God who had to make it all laboriously, piece by piece. [Ed. note: sorry to litter up the landscape with the "Ed. notes"; but I do have quibbles with some of Trefil's statements.... Itals added for emphasis]
Thank you so very much, dear Heartlander, for the ping — and for introducing me to Denyse O’Leary. Verrrrrry interesting! [Though I'm kinder to Max Tegmark than she is.]
"Hitting a wall" seems an ironically materialist matephor to be using :).
So lovely of you to notice!
But of course, I am not speaking "physically," but metaphorically.... As even you seem to acknowledge, but don't seem to draw any insight from this perplexing situation....
Maybe your wordview is filtering your perceptions.
Intelligent design is not creationism, nor is it a religious position. It is the application of design theory to the natural and living world. Intelligent design theorists point to the existence of precise physical laws and the fine tuning of universal constants, the staggering complexity and nanotechnology of the living cell, and the digitally-coded information content of DNA as evidence for a designing intelligence.
Spirited: If ID is limited to “the application of design theory to the natural and living world” then it logically follows that it is but another closed system (one-dimensional naturalism) expressed in terms such as Watery Chaos, Nu, universal substance, World Soul, Mind of the Universe, Vacuum, Quantum Void, Ein Sof, Dialectical Matter, Brahman, and Gnostic Pleroma in close connection with mechanical systems of development i.e., emanation, evolution, unfolding.
CS Lewis aptly described such systems as “boxes closed off” to the living, personal God of Revelation.
All closed systems ultimately reject the Revealed Word perspective (Authority of God) and reside in the reason and mystical experiences of men. Because closed systems ultimately reduce to matter and energy, they are anti-human, meaning they are expressions of nihilism.
It would appear that you are still struggling with chickens and eggs ... ID immediately infers a Designer thus it cannot be a closed system if it is axiomatic that the Designer is greater than the designed 'thing'. Those who would assert ID but deny a designer are playing contradictory word games.
From the ancient Sumerians to the Egyptians, Eastern systems and modern LDS, all infer a god—a designer—from within the system. In every case, the designer turns out to be humanized matter/energy.
So no, I am not struggling with chickens and eggs but unpacking and explaining to those who are interested, the consequences of closed systems.
Nonsense. Lifeless matter is not intelligent. LDS believe matter is eternal and in some distant past ‘eternity’ a god sired the present god of our universe being ruled from a planet orbiting Koleb. I am not referring to such idiocy as that. I am referring to the axioms of ID and one of the most fundamental is that there is a Designer greater than the designed.
Are you really doing that, or just promulgating a dogma that lays exclusive claim to openness?
LDS believe matter is eternal and in some distant past ‘eternity’ a god sired the present god of our universe being ruled from a planet orbiting Koleb”
Spirited: Actually, the way it works is that the LDS god (primal man) mechanically evolved out of matter in the same way that Ra mechanically evolved out of Nu-—primordial matter.
We are agreed on such idiocy.
With respect to ID, if you’ll recall, my initial response was to Heartlander’s —own-— definition of ID. To wit:
“Intelligent design is not creationism, nor is it a religious position. It is the application of design theory to the natural and living world.”
Heartlander’s definition immediately precludes creation by the living supernatural God then goes on to define it as the application of design theory “to the natural and living world.” By definition, this is one-dimensional pantheism.
Christian theism is not one-dimensional but two-dimensional. There are two interfacing, interactive dimensions. The personal God dwells in the third heaven-—outside of the space-time dimension. He created heaven and earth (space-time dimension) through His living Word in six instantaneous acts of creation, since in the beginning was the Word (Augustine). God made heaven and earth in the beginning, not in the beginning of time but in Christ (Chrysostom, Augustine). God created the matter of the heavens and the matter of the earth, which came to be from nothing (Basil, Nemesius of Emesa) The meaning of creation is known from Divine Revelation (Basil). To Moses, God’s revelation of the beginnings was made adequately known and his account is to be fully trusted (Chrysostom).
It is largely accepted by modern men that the reason—natural science, theories, systems, etc.— and mystical encounters of men (i.e., Teilhard de Chardin) are superior to the Revealed Revelation of God. Moderns do not trust His Revealed Word, hence they run from the word “creation” as though it will taint them.
Thank you for writing. I do not ascribe to the perspective premising your next to the last paragraph. That has been a ‘flaw’ with me since my college days and which lead to many ‘interactions’ with my Philosophy Professors.
Perhaps I should add that I believe God Created Time and Space for the beginning, and the many dimensions expressing variables of the dimensions. I happen to also believe there is a dimension of Life and another of Spirit. I suspect there are seven total dimensions, each with variable expressions. ID is a contradiction in terms IF a foundational axiom is not first held that the designer is greater than the designed. ... Even Archimedes required that there be a place to stand from which he could move the world.
“I don’t believe that has happened very frequently, and I don’t believe the good ones do that.”
Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, could go on. They were pretty good.
“Science is quite political and subjective”
Humans are. Science has nothing to say on the matter.
You’re limiting the properties of science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.