on how to reconcile evolution, creation and intelligent design

<video snipped on request>

 

From the video description:

<redacted> TEDx presentation speaks to the debate over innovation of ideas specifically regarding evolution, creation and intelligent design. He asks whether or not science can have the courage to work together with philosophy and religion or worldview to discover where humanity is headed and presents the idea of human extension as a way to promote human dignity, cooperation, altruism and flourishing instead of Darwinian dehumanisation, conflict and struggle.

123 thoughts on “ on how to reconcile evolution, creation and intelligent design

  1. William J. Murray: IMO, all that is left of materialism/physicalism/naturalism is really nothing more than a hidden (even subconscious) anti-theistic agenda.

    What about all the theistic scientists out there? Do they also have a hidden (even subconscious) anti-theistic agenda?

  2. So we just have this ongoing gripe with evolution with no sense of how the alternative works. Its almost like creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

    “IOW, “methodological naturalism”, today, really doesn’t mean anything more than “methodological anti-theism”.”

    Utter crap. Esp, Auras, Homeopathy, etc..

  3. petrushak said:

    You are an unfettered scientist. You wake up in the morning and…

    … start doing what I did almost 20 years ago – first person, empirical investigation into the nature of my actual experience.

  4. William J. Murray: … start doing what I did almost 20 years ago – first person, empirical investigation into the nature of my actual experience.

    The definition of empirical

    based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

    appears to conflict with your claim that, for example, ghosts exist or cancer can be cured by faith healing. Are either of those verifiable then? How?

  5. Richardthughes:
    And how does that help the rest of us?

    It helps the person selling the idea that he can put you in touch with the dead, for a small fee of course.

  6. William J. Murray: … start doing what I did almost 20 years ago – first person, empirical investigation into the nature of my actual experience.

    Earlier you said:

    IOW, “methodological naturalism”, today, really doesn’t mean anything more than “methodological anti-theism”. Anything goes – any wild speculation or narrative whatsoever – except that which most likely implies a god of some sort.

    The two are unrelated. You are conflating unrelated items.

  7. William, I see you think you have a garment made from the finest silks there. Well, we can’t actually see the threads or any of it. We all understand the concept of a garment but we are unable to examine and you are unable to display the specifics of yours.

    So what would a reasonable inference be based on this?

  8. OMagain said:

    Yet it seems you’d rather complain about other people not doing it then do it yourself.

    You are mistaking an assessment for a complaint. I was asked how I would – theoretically – build a better hammer, and I gave my view. That doesn’t mean I want to go out and try to build and market what I think is a better hammer.

    I don’t think there is any real way of removing ideological bias from any activity humans engage in – including science.

  9. OMagain: Earlier you said:

    The two are unrelated. You are conflating unrelated items.

    isn’t Empericism an ism? Will William’s chains free him from his bondage? Big boy pants.

  10. William J. Murray: You are mistaking an assessment for a complaint. I was asked how I would – theoretically – build a better hammer, and I gave my view.

    You gave no specifics. ‘I’d build a better hammer by making a better one not like yours’ is just useless.

  11. Please start another, or I can start one for you. The specifics (or lack thereof) of your ‘free from isms’ paradigm is intriguing and I wish to partake in the dialogue. Uncommon Descent maintains:

    “Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.”

    It looks like you’re the man to give us the details of the alternative.

  12. William J. Murray: … start doing what I did almost 20 years ago – first person, empirical investigation into the nature of my actual experience.

    When you share that, it’s called autobiography or memoir.

    How does raging, out of control materialism prevent people from publishing memoirs?

  13. petrushka: I guess that’s clear enough. I await some evidence to the contrary.

    Evidence to the contrary???? A mirror would suffice.

  14. OMagain: Does it? How can a process that does not have intent have a goal?

    Isn’t this the stumbling block? Studying things in isolation then throwing up your hands in exasperation at the supposedly stupid question being thrown your way, asking how a process has goals?

    Funny thing how each process has no goal, but yet each process happens at such a lucky time, in such a luck place, producing lucky effects????

    Lucky, that organism. Bet there’s a deep green 4 leaf in there somewhere.

  15. Why yes, Petrushka, it is the new opiate of the masses.

    Evolution is the reason for all we do. Don’t try thinking for yourself. Evolution is a complicated affair. It takes years to grasp its meaning.

    Let the Elders guide us in its ways.

    If you don’t believe me, just ask Pithy Richard.

    petrushka: I find it interesting that the deadening effects of scientism and evolutionism are so pervasive — must be a kind of mind ray that can even penetrate tinfoil hats — that critics are unable to come up with actual alternatives and are forced into a kind of quivering, whiney impotence.

  16. Petrushka, a trick question perhaps?

    The Golden Rule. It provides the knowledge that cooperation works better than confrontation. Accepting this knowledge has had wide applications in economics, social cohesion, etc etc.

    Nothing to do with science.

    The best argument for science has always been an argument from utility. Science has never been in the business of directing our lives but rather, playing a supporting role in providing practical products like innovative transportation, fast communications, quick and effective medicine (even if it kills you in the long run, buts thats another story), etc etc.

    So I really don’t get Larry Moran’s rant about science as a way of knowing.

    Science is a way of producing, not knowing. Science without its progeny is a lonely endeavor.

    Unless of course you are looking for a glimpse of God. Then it gets pretty interesting all by itself.

    petrushka:
    Or, alternatively, give me an example from anything in the history of the world where reliable knowledge was produced using theistic assumptions.

    Reliable knowledge that is convincing to all people of all nations and cultures.

  17. Steve: Science has never been in the business of directing our lives but rather, playing a supporting role in providing practical products like innovative transportation, fast communications, quick and effective medicine (even if it kills you in the long run, buts thats another story), etc etc.

    What you describe there is better described as engineering and technology, rather than science. Yes, engineering and technology depend on science. But science is about advancing knowledge, not about building gadgets.

  18. From the article linked above:

    Lost in the hullabaloo over the neo-atheists is a quieter and potentially more illuminating debate. It is taking place not between science and religion but within science itself, specifically among the scientists studying the evolution of religion. These scholars tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history.

  19. Steve: Science is a way of producing, not knowing.

    You don’t agree then that there’s merit in knowing that our planetary system is heliocentric? Certainly such knowledge does nothing to further our endeavours here on Earth: a simple geocentric model would still allow us to raise comsats. Yes, the implications of that ability would soon lead to knowledge about the nature of the solar system, but only if you let your curiosity apply the scientific method to more than just producing.

Leave a Reply