Home
» Intelligent Design » Religion dressed up as science?
Religion dressed up as science?
| May 20, 2009 | Posted by idnet.com.au under Intelligent Design |
A review of a book titled “The Universe: Order without design” appears in New Scientist. The summary of current ideas has a mythic sound to ordinary readers “a tiny piece of inflating “false vacuum” decays into a fireball, and stars and galaxies congeal out of the cooling debris”. Read it and see what you think.
I have two questions.
First, does description equal causation?
Second, is the invoking of billions of theoretical and eternally undetectable other universes simply to give an atheistic explaination of our one tuned universe, more scientific or rational than believing in an Intelligent Fine Tuner?
67 Responses to Religion dressed up as science?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
hazel,
That brings to mind A.J. Ayer’s example of an unverifiable metaphysical proposition:
“…the Absolute enters into, but is not capable of, evolution and progress.”
(From Language, Truth and Logic, Chapter 1)
V J Torley 44,
Thanks for the reference. I’ll have a look at the paper.
As for the divine simplicity and transcendance arguments, I’ve always been skeptical. I would even speculate that philosophical materialism was a creation of the theologians. The more abstract God became, the more he resembled Plato’s realm of eternal forms, and the less he was the personal God Scripture.
Let me suggest—here for better or worse—that as Intelligent Design gains ground more and more intellectuals will begin to question the old theology (which likely birthed this materialism in the first place). Rather than a timeless template from which reality emerges, I predict God will been seen more and more as a dynamic Agent, a Creator, a Person.
Although I enjoy good philosophical arguments for the existence of God, I do not think they are as convincing as some would think—this because they typically begin with presuppositions that might themselves be questioned.
I believe that Phillip Johnson was right to recommend that we make biology the centerpiece of our movement.
The fine tuning arguments are great—but even if they wind up convincing a majority of thinkers they still leave God far, far away—probably the other side of the Big Bang. On the other hand, when Darwinism is seen for the farce it is, then the devout will be more inclined to invoke the Hebrew God of history right up to the latest speciation events and in our own origin.
And might not this be why for the secularist too the front line in the culture war is Darwin? They’re less worried about the fine tuning arguments and least worried of all about the philosophical arguments for God.
Darwin is the sacred cow that must be protected by whatever means, for when Darwin goes the whole secular house of cards collapses.
Mr Rude,
Just to be clear, what part of Darwinism is a farce? If Dr Michael Behe and Dr William Dembski accept the reality of deep time, common descent, and “micro” evolution, what is farcial in your opinion?
Mr Nakashima,
Chance and necessity.
Darwinism is not evolution—it is a silly hypothesis that attempt to explain evolution. But chance and natural selection have never been shown to produce anything but the most trivial of useful losses of information.