POSITION PAPER on INTELLIGENT DESIGN: A BALANCED, RESPECTFUL and RATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Friday, January 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While many in the church today, who having bitten off the principles of the world rather than swallowing the word of God, fail to recognize it, the truth remains that CHRISTIAN SKEPTICISM is not only our great heritage and long standing tradition, but also our Christian calling! (Swordbearer: Christian Skepticism – Our Great Heritage and Calling; July 07)
The key is how the different schools of thought withstand internal critique. Naturalism struggles with internal critique, because it is inductive by nature. Any of its conclusions can be viewed with skepticism, because we can never examine all the evidence in all relationships in all senses. It further refuses to admit to its own metaphysical components. For example, how can the naturalist prove the laws of logic by use of the scientific method, without being viciously circular? It is a metaphysical assumption held to by a groundless faith. (Puritan Lad: Team CS and the clash of the worldviews!; July 07)
If you say that God is “unnecessary in everything we know about”, how do you know that? Do you know “everything we know about”? Who are “we”? How did you come to know the meaning of the word “be”? You said that you don’t know where the universe comes from. How does that remove the necessity for God? At the very least, it is equally an explanation as any other if you don’t know. So then God is not removed from everything we know about, since the universe had to come into existence in order to exist. (Puritan Lad: Team CS and the clash of the worldviews!; July 07)
You mean to say that you actually have evidence that the universe wasn’t created? That would be monumental. Can you point us to this evidence? (Puritan Lad: Team CS and the clash of the worldviews!; July 07)
6 comments:
Wow. Your title sums it up well!
I would ask if you suppose any of them could look at evidence in an unbiased and impartial manner, but they answer it themselves when they say " Real scientists have neither the time nor inclination to be bothered with evidence of Intelligent Design."
It's always fascinating when people use the term "REAL scientists". Who determines whether one is a "REAL" scientist or not, for after all, do they themselves in the ban not acknowledge the advanced degrees of those they disagree with? It's not the degree nor the science, but whether or not they are on their side which leads to their determination (real or not). It's no different than ad hominem attacks and remarks made on playgrounds throughout the world... and you would expect scientists to understand this.
The unbeliever wants to pretend that he is neutral in his approach to science. When faced with evidence for design (which there is no shortage of), they will simply say "we don't know how it happened", and they are fine with that answer. They will then accuse the believer of adopting a "God of the gaps" philosophy, using God to explain what they otherwise cannot explain. So, no, it is not possible to "look at evidence in an unbiased and impartial manner".
The real issue is the very foundation of science itself. Without God, there can be no science, because science presupposes that the natural world exists, and that there are universal and invariant laws governing our world. Those are assumptions that the atheist has no right to make.
I'll post more on this issue in the near future.
Sword, just remember that the Brites write satire. This piece is intended to make fun of the evo's.
and it is hilarious! lol!
August,
Good counsel,
...and in there own way, I think they do a pretty good job!!!
Post a Comment