Home » Intelligent Design » “Irreducible Complicity: Disappointing Darwin” by Roddy Bullock

“Irreducible Complicity: Disappointing Darwin” by Roddy Bullock

Irreducible Complicity: Disappointing Darwin by Roddy Bullock

Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches outer space for confirming material evidence?

Answer: A scientist.

Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches inner space for confirming material evidence?

Answer: A religious nut.

Surprised? You should be. How can the exact same methodology be both touted as scientific and doubted as religious? Are radio telescopes searching for Morse code-like evidence of space aliens inherently scientific while electron microscopes discovering source code-like evidence of design in the cell are not? Why are alien hunters with the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) permitted to infer intelligence if ever they find evidence of specified complexity, but microbiologists who actually find such evidence are lambasted for inferring the same cause?

An honest assessment of our odd state of affairs explains the discrepancy by revealing a most unpleasant fact of modern science: an unholy alliance between institutions of science and the philosophy of naturalism. Science illogically rejects evidence of cellular design because it has taken upon itself the mantle of Godless (but not godless) naturalism, deeming all non-material causes non-scientific, regardless of the evidence. By unnecessarily championing the cause of a belief system, science has been duped into fronting for one set of philosophers, while being derisively dogmatic against another. Darwin would be disappointed to find his eponymous ism has driven such a venomous schism.

Read the rest at the link above.

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

6 Responses to “Irreducible Complicity: Disappointing Darwin” by Roddy Bullock

  1. Any science fiction fans out there remember what Dr Who’s time machine was called?

    The TARDIS

  2. This is one of the best essays on the topic I have ever read. It should be framed, and should be required reading in every junior high and high school science class.

  3. I suspect that if certain sciences that lead to theological implications had not been established prior to the last twenty years or so, they would be viewed as the ideas of religious nuts. If the Big Bang theory had not been developed decades ago and was only now being proposed, I bet the proponents would be dissed as religious wack-balls, regardless of evidence put forward about stellar red shift and cosmic background radiation. If SETI was only now being put forward, it would be thought to be the product of spiritual lunatics.

    BTW, amadan, Dawkins’ wife was an actress in the Dr. Who television show. I think he met her on the set and that he was a big fan of the show.

  4. Maybe part of the answer is that, to a carpenter, everything is a construction project, and to a football coach, all of life is a competition to win. And to a Materialist, everything is material to be studied using the empirical method. Nothing else exists!!

    But why?? One reason is the Materialist recognizes that the spiritual pursuit is not their strength, they are not naturally “good” at it. I am not naturally good at fixing things, so I avoid repair jobs. It is easier to write something off than struggle with it.

    But more than just avoiding it as something not to be preferred, spiritual “realities” are downright frightening. Because, while it seems somewhat amorphous, the stakes are so high. After all, the spiritual life promises to transform a person’s very being at the deepest levels. And indeed, so many people testify that it has done exactly that. And they do appear to be so very changed. Wow, makes one sweat at the very contemplation.

    Yep, far safer to wave your hand and conclude that it doesn’t exist. Never fear. Just bury your head in mountains of data that need to be analyzed and tons of observations. The thoughts of the great beyond are fading. All a bad dream. Repeat over and over — “I am in charge of my destiny, it’s all about me, thank you very much”

  5. If the Big Bang theory had not been developed decades ago and was only now being proposed, I bet the proponents would be dissed as religious wack-balls,

    Especially if it were a Catholic priest who conceived the theory.

    Funny how he never won the Nobel prize.

  6. A question.

    Is really what you hypothesize about that makes a difference or is it how you go about validating that hypothesis.

    For example, I could hypothesize about intelligent life in outer space, but if I use a ouija board to try to validate this, then people would rightly think me a nut.

    For another example, I seem to recall that some researchers at Duke University conducted research in the paranormal. They clearly had a hypothesis but what made people at least try to see their work as serious science were there methods of validatation.

    So maybe we should revisit the two scenarios above and ask, “how does one go about validating the hypothesis”.

Leave a Reply