Comment on Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design by Academic.

If every particle of the universe moved as God directly dictated there would be no freewill or possibility of rebellion against God’s will.

I see that I made a careless mistake. I can easily correct my misstatement by adding two simple words. Nature is not self-acting; every particle of the universe moves as God dictates [or permits]; and God’s sovereignty includes God’s passive consent to the purposes and actions of all created living things.

There would also be no possibility of any kind of accident or evil outside of God’s direct action.

God enables evil to operate. Are you appalled that God enables free choice to do its own will? Evil thoughts decide on moving matter in destructive ways. No rational Christian doubts that God passively consents to the evil of sinful beings. There is no difficulty in imagining how God would prevent accidents from happening in a sinless world.

1 Samuel 6:9 NIV [quoted]

This passage is describing a kind of scientific test with the hypotheses being between a deliberate act of God vs. an unusual collection natural catastrophes that just came along by “chance”.

Yes. Your concept of God’s possible involvement in events is identical to that of the Philistines.

If the phenomenon in question goes beyond what all known apparently non-deliberate mindless forces of nature are capable of achieving …, the ID hypothesis gains rational support and useful predictive value.

Mainstream scientists label your presupposition as being antithetical to science.

There is apparent randomness or non-predictability on both the social and natural levels. …You may argue that God is still in control, but this is not a directly testable hypothesis subject to scientific evaluation or potential falsification.

And that is precisely why ID isn’t science.

In this line, there are a number of papers that demonstrate the extremely unlikely potential of RM/NS to produce higher level functional information this side of a practical eternity of time.

I believe that conclusion is obvious to any clear thinker like Kurt Gödel. “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components.” (Kurt Gödel, quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).)

Upon what basis do you consider Meyer’s arguments unscientific? Have you read the paper?

Yes, I have read Meyer’s paper. I have also read your disapproval of the meaning of science on a webpage that highlights an irrefutable definition of science. Meyer’s arguments are unscientific precisely because grasping at straws is not a scientific process. That’s the same reason that your arguments are antithetical to science.

Academic Also Commented

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin

email

Print