Home » Cell biology, Cosmology, Engineering, Intelligent Design, Physics, Science, Video » Evidence for an Engineered Universe

Evidence for an Engineered Universe

In the next video for the Engineering and Metaphysics conference, we have our keynote speaker, Walter Bradley, author of The Mystery of Life’s Origin (the book which kicked off the Intelligent Design movement). Here Bradley presents an overview of the cosmological case for design. Lots of interesting information from the man who started it all!

There are a few breaks in the video due to tape changes. If you can’t see the embedded video, the YouTube URL is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE

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

14 Responses to Evidence for an Engineered Universe

  1. JB:

    GREAT!

    PPT?

    KF

  2. Yeah a Walter Bradley video!

  3. F/N: I have put up a 640 pixel wide embed here [WP seems determined to chop embeds to 4:3], with my own remarks in brief and onward links. KF

  4. Sorry, no PPT.

  5. I found an overview of the book:

    “In a nutshell the authors attack science and reject all natural theories for the origin of life on earth and end up claiming that the Christian God did it. If the Bible had not been written they probably would not have written the book.”

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/T.....t_Theories

  6. JB: Ouch, I see where he offered such, could he be contacted? KF

    PS: F, the “review” you cite is utterly off point and plays off invidious polarising comparisons. TMLO (which can be freely downloaded at the linked) is a serious review of the OOL issue c 1984, and emphasises issues of thermodynamics, within the context of the challenge of OOL. It is not a popular book, it is not about biblical topics, and it raises technical issues that are unanswered to this day. To get an idea of the issues at stake, cf. here in my always linked note.

  7. 7

    @forests:
    Here’s a more informative review by a Yale specialist:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....4-0093.pdf

    The volume as a whole is devastating to a relaxed acceptance of current theories of abiogenesis. It is well written, and, though technical, much of the book is within the reach of the informed non-scientst. The book apparently has been well received by many who are working in the field of abiogenesis, such as Dean Kenyon and Robert Shapiro.

    Tobi

  8. WTruthInLove not to be picky but a “Yale specialist” did not write that review, a medical student did (see the review for yourself) Also the book it outdated now… we have much more knowledge about the origin of life on earth, but yes there are still many more mysteries but that is no reason to put God in the gap like the authors of that book did… saying God did it is not science.

  9. we have much more knowledge about the origin of life on earth, but yes there are still many more mysteries but that is no reason to put God in the gap like the authors of that book did… saying God did it is not science

    You are right. We do have more knowledge. And guess what? The more knowledge we gain the more implausible abiogenesis becomes. Read The First Gene by David Abel. Abiogenesis is as credible as perpetual motion machines. The only reason it is still being explored is because of a materialistic paradigm which refuses to consider any other option and leaves no other alternative.
    As for God not being “scientific”, I couldnt care less if it is scientific or not. All I care about is if its true or not.

  10. Sorry but David L Abel is a Christian creationist and retired vet… not really an expert on origins of life… other scientists have investigated if he is really a real scientist or not, end line he works in his own house and not with any scientific Institution, see here:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/ph.....oundation/

    He has never worked at the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics at the Origin of Life Science Foundation he works self employed in his own house. This is not ad hominem or attacking the man… but you talk about science, so why would you trust your science from a retired vet?? Just read a science textbook on the matter. Even if God/s exist we can never prove or disprove them so you are wasting your time pondering if they are true or not.. we will never know.

  11. “Sorry but David L Abel is a Christian creationist and retired vet”

    So what? If I took this argument seriously I could just say things like, “Sorry, but Richard Dawkins is an atheist evolutionist” and then ignore the rest of what he says. Such dismissals are intellectually lazy.

    “not really an expert on origins of life”

    No? Well the journals keep publishing him. He’s published in several different journals, including Cell, Physics of Life Reviews, The International Journal of Molecular Sciences, and others, on this very subject. Looking at the table of contents, it seems The First Gene is basically a compilation of all of the stuff he’s published elsewhere. If you don’t think of him as an expert in the field, you should take it up with them.

    Frankly, I don’t care about expertise – I care about correctness. Some of the greatest discoveries in science came from people who labored just for the love of it.

  12. “… end line he works in his own house and not with any scientific Institution, see here:”

    Too true. Same things were said by the Papal Authority about poor ol’ Martin Luther skulking up in a rainy night to crucify his protests on a cathedral door. Why, if there was anything legitimate about that Hun he would have had the Diocese perform peer review on his heresies.

    That’s the point you made. But that’s not the point you were after, eh?

  13. “New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.”
    - Max Planck

    As someone said in an article on here yesterday (which I have been unable to locate) ID is genuine ‘science’, since it concerns ineluctable inferences from sensory information.

    So, manifestly is this the case, that to point out, moreover, that ID is the most immemorially fundamental common-sense, would seem to be an insult to the reader’s or interlocutor’s intelligence. 2 + 2 = ?

  14. Forest has gone back to sleep. You seem to have been talking a lot of piffle, forest, don’t you.

    Did you see that list of some of the journals in which David L Abel had been published, cited by johnnyb?

    How could you, someone who, apparently, sets himself up as a knowledgeable, up-to-date expert in the field, have been so ignorant? Why so fiercely ignorant? I hope the following insight of G K Chesterton isn’t the answer:

    ‘The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.’

Leave a Reply