On May 1, 7:11 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > Few ideas are so readily ridiculed among materialist scientists than > the suggestion that the universe is intelligently designed by a > supreme being. > > In order to understand why this is so, we must take a look at history, > and in particular, Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding. > Today we accept Hubble's expansion with little doubt. But at the time > of its announcement, there was a great controversy. Why? > > Because up until then, the steady state theory had prevailed. In the > steady state view, there was no beginning, no moment of creation. > > Now why, you might ask, was the idea of a Beginning, a Moment of > Creation, so unwelcome among scientists? > > It was because the Steady State Theory was directly contrary to the > opening words of the Bible. "In the beginning, God created..." The > Bible said there was a beginning. The steady state theory strongly > suggested that there was not. Could the scientists bear to admit that > they had been wrong, and that the Bible had been right? Perish the > thought! > > Scientists claim to be open to any theory, even a Theory of God. Just > present the evidence, they say, and conform to the scientific method. > If your evidence passes muster, then we have no objection to admitting > your theory into the science text books. > > But scientists are not always quite the pristine seekers after truth > that they are reputed to be. They are as concerned with personal gain > as anyone else is, and by personal gain, we must include egotistical > and ideological factors as well. > > The Hubble announcement caused somewhat of a panic among scientists > who should have celebrated the discovery. Not only did the universe > have a sudden beginning, but for a few tense moments, it also appeared > that WE are at the center of the universe. > > A sigh of relief could all but be heard when the centerless universe > was restored by curvature of space theory. And after a time, the idea > of a moment of creation settled in, as the primordial point particle > seemed safely agnostic once more. > > With M theory, we have once again reverted to the comfort zone of a > meta-steady-state theory, so to speak. We have unending sequences of > Big Bangs, not moments of creation, but rather, collisions between > membranes that manufacture multiple universes. In this mega-verse of > universes, we have safely retreated back into the underlying > philosophy that has dominated physics for the last few centuries, the > philosophy called by various names, mostly including the word, > material or matter. > > But there is a problem. > > According to the materialist view of nature, we are condemned forever > to think only inside the box, or at least, into an infinite > progression of boxes. Everything inside the box of nature can--- and > must--- be explained only in terms of what is already inside the box. > > We are not allowed to go too far in terms of questioning what might be > outside the box. As soon as one suggests that there MUST be an > outside, the immediate challenge is to redefine outside as inside. The box consists in our logic, there are many things inside it that will never be explained whatever be the "size" of the box [1]
> > Thus, if someone says that the box is best explained by an external > reality called God, the first response is to say that we must measure > God by the standards of the INSIDE of the box. > > If we say that God is the uncreated Creator, then the materialist > places upon God the requirement that He, too, must have been created. > You see, the universe can be uncreated, a self-existent reality with > no beginning. But God cannot be uncreated and self-existent. It is > not allowed. Because then, there might be a God. > > Which is why scientists scoff at the idea of intelligent design. Why, > just because the universe SEEMS to be organized, that does not mean > that it really is. It could all be randomness. And even if the > universe IS organized, that could be purely by chance, there need be > no organizer, not even an ultimate principle that requires > organization. > > And so in the end, you find that the materialists really do have their > own, sort of, god. Like the big G God, the little g god is uncreated, > self-existent. But after that, the differences become major. Not so clear this last paragraph. Did you mean that the existence of an organizing principle is a sort of (materialist) god? > > The little g god is not an intelligent designer, although nature can > produce intelligent designers. > The little g god has no purpose, although it can produce purposeful > creatures. > Materialist nature has no independent free will, and therefore, > neither do its creatures, because everything has to proceed according > to the dictates of natural law, not the dictates of sovereign > individuals. > > Which of course means that if you disagree with me, it is because you > MUST do so, because you do not choose to disagree, you are compelled. > > Indeed, in the materialist view, there is no real science, because > there is no truly independent inquiry. The scientist believes not > what the evidence states, but rather, what the laws of physics dictate > what he must believe. Materialist view is based on scientific method. Which means that to an hypothesis be considered a theory it must to obey to scientific method criteria. I don't understand where you figure that it is not independent. > > If we must scoff at an idea that seems ridiculous, why don't we scoff > at that, instead of intelligent design? > > Why Is Intelligent Design such a bad idea? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
