Home » Intelligent Design » A Walk Through Nature Part IV: Tossing Out Scientism’s Addled Eggs

A Walk Through Nature Part IV: Tossing Out Scientism’s Addled Eggs

The Paseos Por La Naturaleza (A Walk Through Nature) series in Spanish continues with an examination of the atheistic brand of religion that pervades the scientism movement. The neo-atheist Peter Atkins has been one of the modern day crusaders of this movement with his scathing allegation that science presents the only reliable means by which to understand nature and the world around us. Many are those who today revolt against such a position.

The Paseos Por La Naturaleza series aims to further strengthen the global influence that the Intelligent Design movement already enjoys and raise awareness of important academic resources that are today challenging orthodox Darwinism and revitalizing the call for a fresh perspective on scientific discourse.

The fourth installment can be found at:
Lanzando los “huevos podridos” del cientismo fuera del sarten (See also the Ciencia Alternativa site at OIACDI)

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

2 Responses to A Walk Through Nature Part IV: Tossing Out Scientism’s Addled Eggs

  1. “with his scathing allegation that science presents the only reliable means by which to understand nature and the world around us”

    A few comments:
    1. Science IMO only covers the portion of reality that is open to scientific investigation not art, beauty, music and on and on.
    2. In some sense Science is not terribly reliable. After all Newtonian mechanics gave way to Einsteinian mechanics which in turn is already known to be in conflict with Quantum mechanics but there is no unified theory yet. Science is the best we have in its limited area of interest. Somebody named Popper said all scientific theories are open to being falsified by reality and then modified when a better theory is found. IMO Biological science is harder than Physical Science. The Human sciences are harder than biology…

    So given those caveats why does ID want to be science, please explain.

    Sorry commented on the wrong post earlier. Sometimes when one is following comments in different browser winders, on multiple posts it is easy to make a mistake.

  2. So given those caveats why does ID want to be science, please explain.

    ID emerged from the scientific disciplines. Whether it wants to be related to science or not is a moot point. It has a heritage it can’t escape from even if it wanted to.

Leave a Reply