Not one scrap of what you have said points the intelligent design. The simple reason ID is a bad idea is that there is neither design nor a designer evident. Life seems organised in exactly the way it would seem if it happened to be organised by necessity.
On May 1, 10:50 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > Your response is an interesting mixture of reason and emotion. > The reasoning part, I have heard many times before, but I shall > respond to it anyway. > > Science involves observing, measuring and predicting. > But beyond this pure and objective exercise, it is also about > understanding. > Mathematics itself is more than about merely accounting. > Geometry is more than measuring spans from a distance. > And physics has always evoked in its most esteemed scientists a > question of, > as Einstein famously put it, knowing the mind of God. > Astronomers routinely report a sense of awe and wonderment in their > studies. > > Science is nothing if it does not improve our lives, not merely in the > technology it spawns, > but in addressing the vital questions about who we are, where we are > going. > Nor does science stand alone in addressing those issues, but must ally > itself with the > "soft" compartments of life as well. > > Science extends far beyond the laboratory. > One cannot disconnect the institution of science from the other > institutions of society. > They are all interrelated. > > But the naturalist-materialist philosophy, which underlies the current > practice of science, > has led to a practice of science that not only portrays a dismal world > view, but one which > objectivity and reason does not justify. > . > It is that philosophy which I was referring to, not the ideals of > science itself. > It is that philosophy which, when confronted with the pervasive > observations > of consciousness and free will, dismisses them as either outside the > boundaries of science, > or else, the domain of people who have nothing important to do. > Ignorant people, to be blunt. > > Excuse me for saying so, but I detect a bit of that institutional > arrogance in > writings such as yours. > > The standard model of physics is well known, by physicists, to contain > some > serious defects. Physicists are searching in earnest for a > reconciliation. > > But they are hindered in that quest by a worldview that flies in the > face > of some of the most pervasive evidence we have concerning life, > awareness, > and the obviously ordered structure of reality. > > It is that worldview which I challenge. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On May 1, 3:41 pm, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 5/1/10, 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. > > ============= > > G: > > > 1.There are no "materialist scientists" for the simple reason that > > there ain't no such term as "matter" in science. > > > 2.Science is entirely immanent, endeavors to create abstract models > > coordinating experienced events and thus doesn't bother with any > > transcendental, phantasmal "universes", whatever they may mean and > > whether intelligently or stupidly designed or fucked up. > > > 3."Being" is an illegitimate and meaningless inflection of the copula > > "be". > > > So nobody having a bit of sens would lose his time to ridicule a > > mis-inflected copula supposed to design phantasmal "universes". > > > Rather than ridiculed, it should be considered most seriously, > > but only by loony doctors, as a particularly noxious delusion. > > > Georges. > > > -- > > 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 > 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.
