Replies

I am haunted by an issue we have covered that seems to bear reinforcement. As a theologian Newton believed that it was impossible to separate God from the study of nature. As a mathematician he recognized that intelligent design had to be assumed in order to do math.
Are not the very scientists who claim that ID is fallacious in fact assuming ID in order to do their science?
How is it possible for a scientist to apply intellectual rigor unless the system being studied is coherent with intellect? If nature has intelligent character then is not all science engaged in studying intelligent design?

Thank you so much for your engaging reply!

How is it possible for a scientist to apply intellectual rigor unless the system being studied is coherent with intellect? If nature has intelligent character then is not all science engaged in studying intelligent design?

Nature must be logical and intelligible or science and math would have nothing to do. Intelligence per se involves awareness and decision-making. We observers are also participants in nature – thus our own confirmation of intelligence in nature. This, btw, is an observer problem. We cannot step outside of space/time and say objectively that intelligence etc. actually exists "in" nature.

Seems to me the angst over intelligence stems from a refusal to accept that intelligence can cause anything to happen and/or a paranoia that accepting intelligent cause is tantamount to the establishment of religion.