Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer

The bible I like...metaphysical, historical context, metaphor, parable discussions I like. Contemplations on language and idioms, on hyperbole and oral tradition, scholarly theological works, I like.

Apologists who make every attempt to twist and modify square pegs to fit in round holes I find like going to amateur open mike comedy nights....

I'd have a completely different answer if this were placed in Christianity section or belief and spirituality vs any attempt to put it in Science and the Universe....as other than Texas, in what Universe is this Science?

Someone needs to understand the defintions of Science and Theory...both of which seem to be troubling to Intelligent Design Creationists.
 
Intelligent Design is rooted in the ancient Greeks, not Xtianity.

Yes, when Scientism defines science as rejecting all non-material evidence and relying only on matter, it does bother any thinking person. And it should bother (and increasingly it does) any scientist.
 
Which universities are now rejecting science due to its rejection of non material evidence?

links would be nice....to major uni's and to this greek root of intelligent design (You are now saying non biblical??)
 
When you say Intelligent Design is rooted in the ancient Greeks, do you mean in the way all mythology is based on the idea that gods created this world and everything in it?

Science rejects all non-material evidence within the context of science, there might be more out there but if it can't be seen, heard or felt by science, then it's unknowable to science. But we can all chose to experience a world outside of science, if we have the imagination for it.

From that short clip it would seem that you don't need to discard evolution as a process but that it was initiated by design, with or without a specific purpose. I have no problem with this, as they say One sure mark of a fool is to dismiss anything that falls outside his experience as being impossible.

On the other hand, for this to actually be proven (that is, not belief) we need to go through science. That is how the distinction looks today. This might very well bother people, but I doubt it bothers 'scientists', we might have different definitions for that word.
 
"...for this to actually be proven (that is, not belief) we need to go through science."

--> Science only deals with the physical world. If there are other levels of existence which are beyond the physical level of existence (an astral level of existence, etc.), science cannot give us answers for them. Proof of such levels of existence must be found in places other than science.
 
wil said:
Which universities are now rejecting science due to its rejection of non material evidence?

links would be nice....to major uni's and to this greek root of intelligent design (You are now saying non biblical??)
Click to expand...

Here is a Geology prof at U. of Georgia, giving a standard definition: (my bold)

Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding.
Click to expand...

Read the Timaeus of Plato or look up Demiurge.
 
Even though Meyer does not say ID is 'creationist' or that God is a needed factor, he did admit in an interview that ID does "lean in a theistic direction".

But Intelligent Design does not need a single god-creator. The ancient Jain, Buddhist & Samkhya views of the genesis of all do not require a Creator at all.

Here is a diagram of the Samkhya evolution of the universe:
samkhya.53204611_std.jpg


You can see Intellect or Mahat or Universal Mind is a major factor - yet no god or gods needed.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
"...for this to actually be proven (that is, not belief) we need to go through science."

--> Science only deals with the physical world. If there are other levels of existence which are beyond the physical level of existence (an astral level of existence, etc.), science cannot give us answers for them. Proof of such levels of existence must be found in places other than science.
Click to expand...

I personally don't consider anything outside of science as proof of anything, I can't imagine how that would work. I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me on this one.

Skull said:
You can see Intellect or Mahat or Universal Mind is a major factor - yet no god or gods needed.
Click to expand...

Again, the concept of a creating intellect but not defining it as a god or godlike is alien to me. I don't know if that changes anything I wrote earlier.
 
Cuppa: Not 'creating intellect' but being intellect. The notion of the spirit-matter continuum having innate intelligence is hard to fathom, but it is a very old idea.
 
Well it's hard for me who is steeped in modern western thought, I'll work on that one some time.
 
No replication, no peer-review, no credible references, introducing philosophy in lieu of evidence based arguments and a simplistic understanding of Cambrian diversity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top