Faith and Science Ping.
|
Probably because, he debated him several times and knew all his arguments.
This is an amazing piece of journalism, assuming it is done from notes.
Somewhat, but purpose is what we supply. If anybody has discovered God's purpose, they should enlighten us.
Science gives us mechanisms and processes. It is faith to which we turn for purpose and meaning. There is no "gap" to bridge, because this falsely sets science and religion as being opposed.
The liberal Thugocrats are living proof that intelligent design is a false concept.
Hmmm. Let's see. Which ones might be real sciences?
ML/NJ
Just wondering ... Is the Big Bang within, or beyond, the laws of science?
ML/NJ
I am somewhat puzzled by the dogmatic assertion that ID cannot be falsified; while it is true that new "unsolved" cases can continually be found, if evolution is so clearly true, individual problems of complexity should be falsifiable by evidence (if it is actually findable) of how structures such as the eye evolved. Is it, or is it not doable? If it is just do it. A clear explanation of how a particular structure/function evolved amounts to falsification of the hypothesis that it illustrates irreducible complexity. A sufficient number of such refutations will convince the public. Or is it too complex for the public to understand?
One of my most enduring playthings as a child (and one which awoke and fueled my inventiveness as a professional) was a marvelous collection of interchangable components called an "Erector Set". The number of clever mechanisms one could make with an "Erector Set" was virtually limited only by one's creativity -- and the number of components available.
However, I never encountered anything useful that formed when I dumped the pieces onto the floor. And I find the conclusion that, because simpler contrivances can be made from parts of a larger one constitutes evidence for "natural selection" to be insupportable.
About all one could claim is that the components themselves were so formed (some would say, "designed") so as to be suitable for both assemblies and sub-assemblies (or simpler, but different, assemblies).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am certainly no proponent of "Intelligent Design" as a substitute for sientific rigor -- even though my personal experience with the workings of God in my daily life is incontrovertible.
As a Christian who is also a physical scientist, I find no need to allow my religious beliefs to taint the rigor of my scientific studies. Nor do I have any prediliction to allow those who would force a blending of the two to dilute my scientific endeavors -- or to diminish my spiritual awe at the majesty of all that science reveals to me.
"Creation Scientists" and "Intelligent Designists": neither my faith nor my science has need of your attempts to shove your primitive world view into either my beliefs or my science. I don't need your "help" -- and neither, IMHO, does our God.
Lurking Bump.
However, I think he's sidestepping other philosophical questions, like the nature of science itself. As I understand it, logical systems can be structured to be either open or closed to God, not to mention any other would-be intelligences, and I'd wager the same can be said for the philosophical schools of natural science. The unspoken political question is, of course: who decides the authoritative school of thought?
Eugenics, for instance, was once considered scientific, and now it's banished to the pseudoscientific dungeon. Indeed, the law under question in the Scopes trial was written in part to counter Social Darwinist indoctrination.
But of course, I'm not the one cross-examining the witness.
YEC INTREP
Miller said some supporters of natural selection have contributed to the hostility between science and religion by claiming “that science alone can lead us to truth.
“This is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one,” he said. “It is not testable, and it has no more standing than faith-based assertions about nature.”
It's refreshing to see a statement like this from the camp that's generally viewed as materialist.
Science study of patterns. From early childhood Newton wss enthralled by patterns, and as he acquired mathematical tools he was able to use them to discern certain truth in those patterns. He was even required to create such tools to achieve his ends. I think this guy is oblivious to the debate that has gone among the mathematicians about the nature of THEIR science. Is the math in nature, or is it in mankind? How does he know? What is real and what is the illusion of reality?
This is what Behe said ID was before he said it wasn't.
This seems to be a weak point, to me. I don't see how divine participation in biological systems in any way impacts free will.