Oh no, not more “science doesn’t disprove God” stuff …
|May 4, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News|
(You’d almost think it did.)
For one thing, science does not work that way. The forces that work that way within science—the proponents of the multiverse and Darwinism, for example—are damaging science, not God.
For most of us, science is represented by the verification of the Higgs boson or the effort to eradicate polio (dependent on human vectors for survival in the wild).
Credible stuff. By contrast, the theory-of-the-month about the origin of the universe, life, the human race, or the mind…we enjoy making fun of that stuff here, on our break, but no well-informed person mistakes the side show for science.
That said, a friend writes to say that a recent iteration on the God-not-obsolete theme at Time must have slipped past the futz-ator. Stuff does happen sometimes.
But much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the Universe: Why is our Universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life? This question has never been answered satisfactorily, and I believe that it will never find a scientific solution. For the deeper we delve into the mysteries of physics and cosmology, the more the Universe appears to be intricate and incredibly complex. To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden “wisdom,” or structure, or a knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature. And the situation becomes much more daunting as we expand our view to the entire cosmos.
Hmmmm. I’ve never cared for whatta mystery! explanations myself. I think it’s what we do know that is the most significant evidence. But if that’s your bag, this is.
Anyway, recently, the National Science Foundation has begun to get the picture, and has dropped assessment of “belief in” evolution from its evaluation of science literacy.
Well, they had to, didn’t they? What information-gathering purpose would they serve if their questions caused, say, Michael Denton or Lynn Margulis to be considered less science literate than some “aren’t I good?” girl with a job in science somewhere, spouting correctly the dogmas she is simply incapable of doubting?
Let’s just say: If that’s all they want, there is sure plenty of it.
Which reminds me: Readers, are the Darwinians now self-destructing? Why should they suddenly decide to make it all about “race” just now, when so much about genetics in general is up in the air?
See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).
The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (origin of life)
The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution)
– O’Leary for News