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

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

Richard Dawkin's problem with God

Beliefnet has published an interview by Laura Sheahan with biologist Richard Dawkins, who employs evolution in support of atheism. In the second part of the interview, Sheahan says to Dawkins: "You criticize intelligent design, saying that 'the theistic answer'--pointing to God as designer--'is deeply unsatisfying'--presumably you mean on a logical, scientific level." Dawkins then replies to the interviewer: "Yes, because it doesn't explain where the designer comes from. If they're going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organs—'these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?'--well, if they're so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated." My reply: Dawkins does not explain WHY the designer of biological organs would have to be more complicated than the organs he designs. He does not think that such an explanation is...
Post a Comment
Read more