Skip to main content

"intelligent design" is probably not the answer

I red the article about intelligent design. I want to read more about the reasons that the people that support this movement have but, I disagree with a position that affirm that intelligent design exist because there are things of the “biological” world that are not possible to explain. As Alberts said, science is the attempt to understand the world and all the science history shows that little by little we are answering important questions about our material world. I think that this doesn’t restrict two conditions that I consider very important: 1) the necessity to recognize that in the human experience there is a kind of reality that can not be treated in the same way as the material world. 2) to recognize that in the root of the material reality there is something that never will be explained with science. how things exist?, what set up the physical rules?, what is the origin of everything?. And these are very important question that one needs to try to answer, and the answer is not in science.
There is an interesting sentence of Cordova: “If I could prove even one small part of my faith through purely scientific methods that would be highly satisfying intellectually”. I think that this is a mistake. In order to know something is necessary to use the appropriate method. Science only is able to explain phenomena that can be measure. And so is not the appropriate method to approach the questions that have to do with the root of reality and with the root of man. The evidence of the existence of something beyond the appearance is in our experience. It is already in the fact that we have such a great desire to know, to understand our origin, in the wonder that we live in front of nature and in front of human being. In every true human experience there is something that pushes you to open yourself to something that is beyond. And there is no “mechanical” demonstration for that.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more