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

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

continuing the discussion with Tim in a new post

Hi Tim, I am posting my reply here, because the great blogmeister won't let me put it all in a comment. Me thinks I get your point: is it that we can name and chimps can't, so therefore we are of greater value than chimps? Naming is something above and beyond what a chimp can do, right? In other words, you are illustrating the point I am making (if I catch your drift). My argument is only a sketch, but I think adding the ability to name names, as it were, is still not enough to make the argument seem cogent. For one can still ask why we prefer being able to name over other skills had by animals but not by humans. The objector would demand a more convincing reason. The answer I have in mind is, to put it briefly, that there is something infinite about human beings in comparison with the subhuman. That "something" has to do with our ability to think of the meaning of the cosmos. Whereas one might say"He's got the whole world in His han
2 comments
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here.&qu
Post a Comment
Read more