Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick The randomization of intelligence in the universe is a bit like saying that Gengis Khan was a social worker,and baked cakes on his day off???Why do so many resist the idea of intelligent design,and go along with such absurd non-sence,its almost like we are afraid to acknowledge what many in their Gut know to be true. |
I just read "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who find Darwinism unconvincing" and I think it will answer many of your questions. I can not do justice to the ideas therein, but here are some of them:
1) Science, as its core principal, is concerned with naturalistic causes. Therefore, it is nonsensical to talk about looking for non naturalistic causes from within a scientific world view. That is like asking someone who is measuring in Euclidean space to comprehend space time curvature. It just doesn't make any sense within their framework of thought. This means that science may never be able to approach certain truths- but to the scientist, within their world view, this is acceptable- for their goal is the advancement of particular forms of knowledge, not all knowledge. There do exist other disciplines of endeavor!
2) Science has always been fighting against religion for solid reasons- religion finds solutions to problems and then stops trying to apprehend further causes. At the point science embraces external cause on certain arms of research, then it will cease exploring and advancing along that domain. Where would you pick to suddenly resolve with external agency? Neurology? Certainly. Quantum mechanics? Probably. Economics, since it is dictated by quasi-moral agents? Possibly. So you can see, the economist may suddenly pull out- "God decided to punish this group of people who had not saved enough food for the winter" rather than seeking a deeper explanation of "this group of people who had relied on trade to survive the unknown upcoming harsh winter months found that the neighboring droughts kept the supply of food low, leading to starvation". So I think it is appropriate to divide science from theology cleanly and indivisibly- otherwise the advancement of thought would collapse under differing religious agendas.