Metascience, cosmology, and biogenesis: a philosophical examination of questions on origins.

I would like to share this essay which contains a skeptical criticism of what is argued to be bias and hidden premises in the methodology and prevailing worldview presented by the physical sciences. It is several parts. Questions are welcome, and criticisms are appreciated, so long as they are scholarly and intellectually respectful.

Metascience, cosmology, and biogenesis: a philosophical examination of questions on origins.

by MF Alexander

Metascience

Science is merely a lens through which to view the world around us. The picture that we perceive when looking through this lens is called a world view. The world view that science paints for us is depicted as being superior to all other world views in that in can be verified by observation and peer review, its language is precision and mathematics, and also because it's practical application-namely technology-is proof of concept. The strength of Science in theory is that, ideally, it does base it's predictions, premises and conclusions on that which is observable, that which can be observed and understood, and that which can be manipulated for verification. Furthermore the theories and axioms of science, in theory, will always be subject to the possibility of falsifiability by counter-example.

One could approach scientific criticism by attacking any number of its specific conclusions. For example it is possible in theory to show that the speed of light is not a constant by demonstrating it traveling at a velocity other than C. Another way that one could approach scientific criticism is to demonstrate that the foundations and methods it rests upon are fundamentally flawed in principle.

One such example of a foundational principle that is assumed without categorization by the physical and natural sciences, is that everything is material. If there exists any such things in the physical Universe which are not material (comprised of neither matter nor energy), observable (whether directly or indirectly), manipulable(to be experimented upon, industrialized, or commercialized), or predictable (meaning if this hypothetical thing does not conform with Science, it's accepted ideas, and implicit assumptions), then Science can not say, for it refuses to allow for both that which is seen and unseen, and consequently science emphatically declares that this thing therefore does not exist.

Incidentally some of the leading and accepted theories of science-take quantum physics for example-seem to exist solely in an abstract universe of discourse, observed and described only within a framework of the most complex mathematical notions. The veracity of these theories hinges upon accurate predictions within a small margin of error. When dealing with things like atomic and sub-atomic particles which have unpredictable behavior that defies everything we know about the Universe, quantum fields, strings, quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, Universal forces, dark-matter, and a host of other theories in contemporary science, it seldom is questioned where the line is drawn between that which is “material”, and that which is immaterial. It seems duplicitous that it is acceptable for a scientist to speak about the 11th dimension to support a string theory without raising a brow, but to wonder aloud if the 11th dimension is eternal paradise, or ask where thoughts, principles, and physical laws can be observed, these are laughable as the ponderings of an ignorant uneducated fool, or even worse-scorned; flying invisible spaghetti monsters don't count.

This a priori rejection by science of that which is metaphysical, while propagating notions that are indifferentiable from metaphysics in such a way as to obfuscate this conflation, is worse than duplicity, it is intellectually dishonest.

This influential worldview science communicates ripples through class rooms of liberal public and higher education, and pervades sociological institutions like mass media, or pop culture. This worldview is communicated as the idea that Science doesn't need God to make sense of the Universe, life, or the Human experience; that the methodology, theories, and axioms of Science are sufficient to arrive at truth; that 'truths' arrived at by other intellectual disciplines-especially philosophy and religion-are epistemologically inferior; that therefore God doesn't exist, nor even the notion of that which is metaphysical, or supranatural; as the notion that it can explain everything in the Universe with the simplest, yet inaccessible, equation; that a quantum particle, which may or may not be a figment of sciences imagination, is tantamount to God; by the promises and future hope of paradise and salvation in knowledge and technology, as promised by press and mass media.

How is the integrity of the physical laws preserved as it pervades through the Universe? Are the physical laws material? If so where are they written? If not does that mean they do not exist? If by some miracle the Universe did deviate from the worldview decreed by Science, and its laws, what would it look like? What would it be called? Would it be written off as an anomalous outlier? Where do miracles or extraordinary circumstances of divine intervention fit into the equation for science? Is it a hallmark of objectivism to sublimate any point of data that disagrees, as a matter of principle?

Regarding the alleged laws and forces that so efficaciously govern our Universe, where did they come from, and for what reason? In a Universe with a planet such as ours, host to intelligent life such as us, who ask questions such as these, is it folly to wonder if these laws and forces that science describes, are merely glimpses of the fantastic genius of a Divine Architect? What if it could be demonstrated that the Universe science paints for us looks an awfully lot like a Universe designed with life in mind, and in particular Human life, is it possible for science to acknowledge at least this? It is the intention of this essay to attempt to do just that, to understand and communicate the world view science paints for us, and by this picture highlight criticisms of science, to demonstrate that the Universe which science teaches about, is abounding with phenomenon that is better understood if it existed in a Universe intelligently designed by the inconceivable genius, and efficacious power of a Creator God.

Metascience, cosmology, and biogenesis: a philosophical examination of questions on origins.

continued...

The Big Bang


The prevailing cosmological theory in science to explain how this Universe came to exist is that of the big bang theory. The theory posits that some time more than 13 billion years ago there existed a singularity bound up in a moment. This singularity was so dense it contained all of the mass and energy in the entire Universe in a point of space and time, smaller then even a Plank length, which is the smallest unit of space. What bound up this singularity, where it came from, and what caused it to spontaneously expand, are questions science attempts to answer as a function of quantum fluctuations, or as an infinitely oscillating system. While these theories are ambitious and imaginative, it seems evident in the mind that unless science has discovered some sort of Einstein-Rosen bridge allowing them to closely observe the origins of the Universe from a space and time far removed, then it would seem that this is a matter that science is unable to answer with any degree of certainty.

Why is science unable to affirm these theories with any degree of objectivity? By it's own criterion it is beyond the scope of science to make predictions, hypothesis, experiment, and reach conclusions, if the matter in question is unobservable and/or immeasurable. Are the Universal singularity, the catalyzing 'quantum fluctuations', its' subsequent inflation and unfolding observable or measurable?

The singularity that preceded the Universe, its rapid expansion, and inflation into the Universe that we wonder upon today are not able to be observed or measured directly, this is accepted. Doesn't this also mean that therefore these scientific theories are highly speculative, to say the least? Even still science does offer us a confident story about where the Universe came from and how it unfolded and developed over time. Science makes the argument that upon a framework of accepted laws and theorems derived from what we can observe here and now, it is possible to extrapolate and project to that which can not be directly observed, and to do so with some degree of certainty. I would challenge this premise on the grounds that it is impossible, and self-evidently so, to extrapolate with any degree of certainty from what we know about the Universe here and now, as if it is necessarily applicable to the Universe there and then. It would seem that to derive information about the first moments of the Universe from a future present far removed in space and time, it would require a reversal in entropy, and shift in the arrow of time.

Consider this related quote from world renown theoretical astrophysicist Professor Steven Hawking:


“At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang.

...Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.”(Lecture by Professor Steven Hawking, “The Beginning of Time”. Hawking, S.W., www.hawking.org.uk...)


The prevailing cosmological theory that describes the unfolding of the Universe, where matter, stars, solar systems and galaxies come from is a story about a compacted singularity containing everything in the Universe rapidly expanding from a point smaller than the smallest mathematically describable unit of space and time. As this super heated compaction of plasma expanded it cooled allowing the resolution of reactions between primordial subatomic particles. The victorious subatomic particles emerged in the moments following spontaneity in an unevenly distributed fashion allowing for pools of order to form in spite of the surrounding chaos, and increasing entropy. In this scientific cosmology, just moments after spontaneity is when it is believed the laws of physics achieved some sort of stasis. This stasis is like a harmonious equilibrium that allegedly guides its unfolding to the present moment. This stasis is assumed to have disintegrated in the hypothetical unified state prior to spontaneity which existed in this singular anomaly. A theory that reunifies what in Science is known as the Universal forces is a sort of Holy grail for theoretical Physics. If we can't understand grand unified theory in the presently cool Universe how can we even begin to grasp the grand unified theory of the chaotic first moments described through the lens of Scientific materialism? Due to the equilibrium arrived at in the first few minutes of the Universe it was later possible for lighter elements like H and He to appear, a necessary ingredient for the first stars to forge, in whose furnace these light elements would be transmuted into heavier elements that would be necessary for planets to form.

Within the framework of this theory it is also accepted that the timely and precise resolution of these cosmological quantum variables constitute critical factors in what would later become a Universe hospitable to life. It is not unreasonable to wonder if the number of such critical factors are as numerous as the quantum particles potentially bound up in the singularity. In how many ways can everything in the Universe fit neatly into a space smaller then the Planck length? Reasoning from causality would the distribution of potential in the singularity before spontaneity inexorably affect every moment that followed its sudden expansion?

In light of all that was necessary to make this moment possible at first it seems intuitive and self-evident that it is inconceivably improbable for this Universe to materialize in the absence of an intelligent and efficacious Creator. It seems to be that if everything were not precisely mise en place from the very first moment this singularity came to exist, regardless of how it came to exist, then it necessarily follows that this Universe would not exist, and consequently neither would mankind. How could one attempt to calculate the likelihood that this Universe should exist assuming the Scientific cosmology is true? Human limitation and ignorance make this task impossible with any degree of certainty.

Metascience, cosmology, and biogenesis: a philosophical examination of questions on origins.

continued...

A response to theist attempts to construct a lens of probability to examine and scrutinize the unlikelihood that a Universe like this could manifest absent the intelligence and efficacy of a Creator is the argument from the anthropic principle. Much like the moments pervading that of spontaneity, the modus operandi for defending scientific claims breaks down here, with a crude logic that blurs the distinction between the scientific method and philosophy.

The anthropic principle reasons that if the Universe were not tuned in such a way so as to eventually produce a hospitable environment, and life, in spite of its likelihood, it would not be home to life, and therefore there would be no intelligent life to ponder its meaning. Furthermore because there is intelligent life pondering the likelihood that it should exist, it therefore follows that the probability of the Universe being perfectly tuned to eventually host and give birth to life is certain, and consequently there is no need to infer whether the coinciding fortuity of the Universe is a matter of Providence, or likelihood. The anthropic principle begs the question of existences likelihood, and is often presented as such that its significance is conflated with both science and veracity, of which it is demonstrated to be neither.

The anthropic principle is a principle that implies we either turn a blind eye and ignore the sheer improbability for the life giving Universe to exist, without a Creator, or we assume the existence of a multi-verse consisting of every possible Universe such that the probability that a Universe such as ours should exist approaches certainty. It is the idea that the Universe is because it is. While this rebuttal to statistical scrutiny of the scientific worldview is presented as sound and valid, it is yet to be shown whether it lends any insight into the question, and challenge, that it allegedly tackles. This second possibility infinitely regresses into begging the question, for who then Created the efficacious multi-verse, etc, ad on infinitum, and as such this premise can be dismissed as a logical paradox beyond our grasp. Consequently it doesn't appear that the anthropic principle addresses the contention that is in question which is the theoretical degree of unlikelihood that this Universe should exist, in the absence of an intelligent and efficacious Creator. Essentially the argument from the anthropic principle proves useless spare it's value as a thought experiment for some obscure purpose.

This anthropic principle is deceptively clever, and lest fall into the snare of its fallacy, it is important to better understand. The challenge originally presented by theists is that due to the volume of critical factors assumed to be perquisite for the Universe to be hospitable and host to complex, biodiverse, and intelligent life, as derived from the theories of cosmogenesis and biogenesis presented in the worldview of scientific materialism, that the likelihood and actuality that this particular Universe should emerge from a matrix of all possible universes, and to do so without intended cause, is a likelihood that approaches a probability of zero. While an infinitesimally minute likelihood would be reasonable to hypothesize, and even though it may seem self-evident, an honest estimation of the situation is that these probabilities are beyond the ability to be calculated meaningfully according to mankind’s present knowledge or capability. It seems this is a contention left for the future to resolve.

Regardless of what probabilities can be naturally and objectively derived and calculated to lend support for evidence of design, it seems an undeniably peculiar thing for a Universe hospitable to life to burst forth in an instant without cause. Imagine standing on our inter dimensional Einstein-Rosen bridge watching this happen holographically from hyperspace, and observing the entire history of the Universe described in the theories of the physical sciences unfold before your eyes in minutes. Visualize this. Now suppose you knew nothing about the scientific theories of cosmogenesis, theoretical astrophysics or quantum physics. Is this imaginary holohistory of the Universe something that can be viscerally accepted in the mind as a marvel that is explained sufficiently as nothing more than a mundane anomaly without need or recourse as to its cause and creator? In a materialistic Universe causality would demand that the big bang had a cause. What about intent?

If the Universe were created with intent we would expect to find something extraordinary like life intelligent enough to ponder its meaning and purpose. The very existence of questions of meaning and purpose, questions which transcend nations and empires, and are pervasive in the quest for gnosis and truth as detailed throughout time in the worlds various philosophies, religions, cultures, and worldviews
.
The inherent question posed and hunted by the various disciplines of physical science is “how does the Universe work?” Is it evident that questions about how the Universe works are inextricably bound up with the question of why it works at all. The question of how physical systems work is answered roughly by the physical sciences/ The question of why the physical systems of the Universe work could hypothetically be approached by identifying that which the system effectively accomplishes. Both questions of how and why continge on the intent, intelligence, and efficacy(potency) of a Creator.

It seems that in order to trace the unfolding of the physical Universe, in our minds abstract imagination, or in digital models, as the physical sciences describe it, it is inevitable to arrive at the observation that the Universe science describes reeks of efficacy and the appearance of design. Is there a standard of measure by which to define an appearance of design, in order to better approach the question of whether that physical system was designed, or not? By examining how complex systems we know to be designed work, systems like industrialist machinery or computers for example, it seems possible to derive a list of attributes that accompany a system that is intelligently designed. Even a brief reflection on this matter would show that complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy, are just some of the hallmarks that accompany systems we know to be designed, and can be understood as strongly indicative of a system created by intelligent life. If a black box were analyzed to determine whether it is a naturally occurring system, or if it is the product of purpose and design, the probability that the blackbox in question is designed increases rapidly in the evidence of each coinciding characteristics. It should be evident that the Universe described in the worldview of the physical sciences abounds with evidences of these very characteristics of complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy. Why then should it be some sort of scandalous idea to seriously press the issue that the Universe appears to be designed, and attempt to explore any implications which may follow?

Metascience, cosmology, and biogenesis: a philosophical examination of questions on origins.

continued...

Any student of biology can appreciate just how complex, intricate, interconnected, interdependent, efficient, efficacious, and ruggedly fragile life in all its diversity is. This is true even down to the microscopic level. Are these characteristics not some of the very fingerprints that one would expect to find about a thing that is designed with intent, and created with purpose? The organic physical systems that comprise life are not alone in this distinction. The mechanisms of the 'inanimate' physical systems of the Universe described by science are accompanied by these very same characteristics, and in every nook and cranny of existence that science peers.

To cling stubbornly to the anthropic principle in response to what was originally posited as a seemingly reasonable conjecture inspired by an honest examination of the scientific facts, suggests an inherent bias in institutional science that risks undermining its conclusions, and clouding the lens through which it discerns that which is the truth and matter of things. Why should the discerning mind loathe to consider higher questions inspired by that discipline of human inquiry which is so highly regarded? Why does science find it repulsive for its discoveries to illuminate greater meaning in life, or lend its evidences as weight in favor of the existence of anything that might suggest a Creator God,or metaphysical reality? Is this aversion to approaching the timeless questions of life and God inextricably entwined to the notion of intelligence in contemporary western thought? An eclectic approach grounded in contemporary epistemic history suggests that this institutional bias seems to exist as a potentially maladaptive artifact, and stubborn vestige, of the struggle for recognition as societies accepted epistemic authority. These are questions that science as an institution will need to ask of itself if it is to avoid epistemic deemphasis in the future at the hand of the marvelous mysteries it helped discover and unravel.

The OP is taken from another thread found here, and here is a reply I posted.

Prezbo369
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Seems like a giant and laborious argument from ignorance...

'We don't know X, therefore a creator (Jesus)'

If there were any evidence of anything that was not material, science would be all over it like white on rice. But there isn't any such evidence and so there's nothing to investigate.

Creationists often attempt to imply some kind of scientific conspiracy as to why their claims are not taken seriously by mainstream science, despite them failing to proving any evidence outside of their chosen religious scripture.

That's intellectual dishonesty.

Prezbo369
The OP is taken from another thread found here, and here is a reply I posted.

Prezbo369
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Seems like a giant and laborious argument from ignorance...

'We don't know X, therefore a creator (Jesus)'

If there were any evidence of anything that was not material, science would be all over it like white on rice. But there isn't any such evidence and so there's nothing to investigate...

That's intellectual dishonesty.

I'm not sure that you have taken the time to consider the arguments.

Point 1

It seems that in order to trace the unfolding of the physical Universe, in our minds abstract imagination, or in digital models, as the physical sciences describe it, it is inevitable to arrive at the observation that the Universe science describes reeks of efficacy and the appearance of design. Is there a standard of measure by which to define an appearance of design, in order to better approach the question of whether that physical system was designed, or not? By examining how complex systems we know to be designed work, systems like industrialist machinery or computers for example, it seems possible to derive a list of attributes that accompany a system that is intelligently designed. Even a brief reflection on this matter would show that complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy, are just some of the hallmarks that accompany systems we know to be designed, and can be understood as strongly indicative of a system created by intelligent life. If a black box were analyzed to determine whether it is a naturally occurring system, or if it is the product of purpose and design, the probability that the blackbox in question is designed increases rapidly in the evidence of each coinciding characteristics. It should be evident that the Universe described in the worldview of the physical sciences abounds with evidences of these very characteristics of complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy. Why then should it be some sort of scandalous idea to seriously press the issue that the Universe appears to be designed, and attempt to explore any implications which may follow?

An objective measure of appearance of design is presented here by first examining man made systems that we know are the product of design. By examining the universe that science describes against this measure it becomes plain and distinct that every nook and cranny abounds with those characteristics we might expect to find in a system that is intelligently designed. This is not an argument from ignorance. Moving along.

Point 2:

Regardless of what probabilities can be naturally and objectively derived and calculated to lend support for evidence of design, it seems an undeniably peculiar thing for a Universe hospitable to life to burst forth in an instant without cause. Imagine standing on our inter dimensional Einstein-Rosen bridge watching this happen holographically from hyperspace, and observing the entire history of the Universe described in the theories of the physical sciences unfold before your eyes in minutes. Visualize this. Now suppose you knew nothing about the scientific theories of cosmogenesis, theoretical astrophysics or quantum physics. Is this imaginary holohistory of the Universe something that can be viscerally accepted in the mind as a marvel that is explained sufficiently as nothing more than a mundane anomaly without need or recourse as to its cause and creator?

This argument is basically an argument from causality that says the mind intuitively knows by way of its causal experience that if we were to observe a Universe teeming with life to appear before our eyes it would not be acceptable to explain it away as the result of some meaningful cause. The anomaly of spontaneously appearing Universes and intelligent life demands answers to the questions of how and why. These are questions which science attempt to discern, yet the very question why the Universe works is a question which implies efficacy and intent. The argument for design here does not follow from a lack of scientific evidences, or gap in our understanding, but from the very nature of the Universe implied by the questions that science is compelled to explore.

If the Universe were created with intent we would expect to find something extraordinary like life intelligent enough to ponder its meaning and purpose. The very existence of questions of meaning and purpose, questions which transcend nations and empires, and are pervasive in the quest for gnosis and truth as detailed throughout time by the worlds various philosophies, religions, cultures, and worldviews, is cause to seriously consider creative intent.

The inherent question posed and hunted by the various disciplines of physical science is “how does the Universe work?” Is it evident that questions about how the Universe works are inextricably bound up with the question of why it works at all. The question of how physical systems work is answered roughly by the physical sciences. The question of why the physical systems of the Universe work could hypothetically be approached by identifying that which the system effectively accomplishes. Both questions of how and why continge on the intent, intelligence, and efficacy(potency) of a Creator.

These excerpts are two of the unique arguments raised by the observations, and theories of the physical sciences. Neither of these arguments is premised on "'We don't know X, therefore a creator (Jesus)'", as you say, and neither leads to this line of reasoning. You imply that I am presenting a 'God of the gaps,' yet it has been shown this is untrue and unfounded. You also fail to mention that the worldview your argument lends to, of scientific materialism, is attempting to bridge gaps of Human ignorance and knowledge, gaps that, without God, could never be filled, not even with all the matter in the material worldview.

How can science even attempt to bridge this gap alone? Science isn't even equipped to answer the more fundamental questions of what is it to know or what can be known. These weaknesses are hedged, on the other hand, by the strength that science offers an answer to the question of how things can be known, or at least one such method, yet fails to recognize other sound and valid means. An eclectic approach is necessary.

Does a broader approach lead to the conclusion that the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob is unique because He has revealed Himself with mighty deeds and great signs in the recorded histories of the world? I would emphatically agree. Is His majesty proclaimed by Creation? Absolutely so! It is my estimation that the evidences of science only support this. As to whether Jesus is the Christ, the Logos through Whom all came to exist, lets just say institutional science and I would disagree on this contention, but what does science know?

reply to post by mrphilosophias


Without an example of a universe that wasn't designed, we have no idea what a designed universe would look like.

And just because we can't imagine or think of better explanations to certain observations it doesn't mean that an intelligent designer was responsible by default. Such an incredible claim would still have all of its work ahead of it.

Your arguments have been made many times in the past by many creationists/ID proponents and have been considered many times in the past by many who reject the claim for an intelligent designer.

It's time something new was brought to the table by those making the claim for ID, instead of these same old arguments regurgitated over and over again.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


So just to be clear in this matter, are you personally arguing in favor of creationism, or is this just something you wanted us to critique?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

So just to be clear in this matter, are you personally arguing in favor of creationism, or is this just something you wanted us to critique?

This was more than just an argument in favor of creationism, it was the idea that evidences derived from the physical sciences strongly support this notion, and that science is too blind to see it, for want of faith and reason.

It also proposes a methodology for an eclectic metascience which tempers the strengths of science and reason. It is a bridge by which the world, together with faith and reason, and equipped with the methodology and evidences of science, can even begin to answer some of the more meaningful and pertinent questions like the categorical responsibility of science, industry, and technology, to the natural order and its tenancy, and to the dignity of man. Not to belittle the benefits of science, industry, or technology, only that even a brief historical reflection shows that these God given tools have all too often resulted in death of the innocent, and the disruption and destruction of the natural order. This lack of ethos on the part of science, combined with the love of money and lust for power at the hands of industry and technology, are at the root of much unnecessary evil in the world. These grievances of evil and corruption inevitably follow from unbridled scientific materialism and rejection of God.

Prezbo369
reply to

 

Without an example of a universe that wasn't designed, we have no idea what a designed universe would look like.

I previously derived characteristics that objectively constitute an "appearance of design" from the set of every system known to man to have been intelligently designed. This appearance of design is an objective epistemic measure. Science agrees that the aforementioned list of characteristics constitute attributes found in intelligently designed systems. Science also agrees that these characteristics are found in every nook and cranny of the universe. Why is it then that science can't admit that it is therefore likely that the Universe is a system intelligently and efficaciously Created? The reason is because science is not as versatile as it presupposes.

Here are the characteristics again. Would you not agree that these characteristics accompany every complex system known and accepted by science to be intelligently designed and created?

mrphilosophias
Even a brief reflection on this matter would show that complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy, are just some of the hallmarks that accompany systems we know to be designed, and can be understood as strongly indicative of a system created by intelligent life.

forgive the typos. the view earlier suggested should read

mrphilosophias
This argument is basically an argument from causality that says the mind intuitively knows by way of its causal experience that if we were to observe a Universe teeming with life to appear before our eyes it would not be acceptable to explain it away as without reason or cause.

if a mod sees this is there any way they could edit this for me?

reply to post by mrphilosophias


So, this creator of the universe, did he swoop down on every planet that has life, and purposefully create flora and fauna, and make an "Adam and Eve" in his image, and then impinge himself into the social structure and individual lives of inhabitants of those planets too?

Did he disguise himself in an appropriate "man suit" and pretend to be one of them, on other planets too? Or is this "Earth" just special?

reply to post by mrphilosophias

it was the idea that evidences derived from the physical sciences strongly support this notion, and that science is too blind to see it, for want of faith and reason.

So in other words, science requires faith in order to realize that its evidence strongly supports creationism? I'm sure it does. Faith is the magical ingredient to any creationist formula. Why? Because it negates the need for evidence.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

it was the idea that evidences derived from the physical sciences strongly support this notion, and that science is too blind to see it, for want of faith and reason.

So in other words, science requires faith in order to realize that its evidence strongly supports creationism? I'm sure it does. Faith is the magical ingredient to any creationist formula. Why? Because it negates the need for evidence.

edit on 22-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Compelling arguments have been offered that establish the Universe as abounding with characteristics that are agreeable to science as constituting an appearance of design. This appearance of design is so compelling that it undermines the very foundation of a scientific worldview that presupposes strict materialism. To call into question this strict materialism is to suggest realities that transcend the physical universe. This evidence in tandem with the host of other valid arguments offered give cause to conclude intelligent design, and consequently a Creator. There is no magic here. The contention is that a reasonable examination of the issues in question here, and even in light of the evidences of science, yield cause for faith and belief in God and the metaphysical.

windword
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

So, this creator of the universe, did he swoop down on every planet that has life, and purposefully create flora and fauna, and make an "Adam and Eve" in his image, and then impinge himself into the social structure and individual lives of inhabitants of those planets too?

Did he disguise himself in an appropriate "man suit" and pretend to be one of them, on other planets too? Or is this "Earth" just special?

Admittedly the answer to these questions is beyond my grasp. There is reason to believe that the Creator is concerned with even the tiniest details of this vast Universe, and especially the events here on planet Earth. That we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" is only accentuated by the physical sciences, and so to that Creation proclaims His majesty! If God has made us wonderfully so would it be an unreasonable leap of faith to suggest that the bounds of His power and love go so far as to make provision for a plan of salvation for fallen mankind like that detailed in the Judeo-Christian scriptures?

If there exists an alien planet of God's creatures in need of help, do I think He would help them? I certainly think it is possible, all things considered, but this is purely speculation. Jesus the Christ did teach us after all that God cares about even the birds and flowers of the field, so how much more for us!

mrphilosophias

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

it was the idea that evidences derived from the physical sciences strongly support this notion, and that science is too blind to see it, for want of faith and reason.

So in other words, science requires faith in order to realize that its evidence strongly supports creationism? I'm sure it does. Faith is the magical ingredient to any creationist formula. Why? Because it negates the need for evidence.

edit on 22-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Compelling arguments have been offered that establish the Universe as abounding with characteristics that are agreeable to science as constituting an appearance of design. This appearance of design is so compelling that it undermines the very foundation of a scientific worldview that presupposes strict materialism. To call into question this strict materialism is to suggest realities that transcend the physical universe. This evidence in tandem with the host of other valid arguments offered give cause to conclude intelligent design, and consequently a Creator. There is no magic here. The contention is that a reasonable examination of the issues in question here, and even in light of the evidences of science, yield cause for faith and belief in God and the metaphysical.

edit on 22-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

Compelling arguments establish nothing but a particular individuals point of view. Compelling and verifiable facts are an entirely different story. I think your first sentence would be more along the line of truth is it stated " Compelling arguments have been offered the Suggest the universe as abounding...

peter vlar

mrphilosophias

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

it was the idea that evidences derived from the physical sciences strongly support this notion, and that science is too blind to see it, for want of faith and reason.

So in other words, science requires faith in order to realize that its evidence strongly supports creationism? I'm sure it does. Faith is the magical ingredient to any creationist formula. Why? Because it negates the need for evidence.

edit on 22-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Compelling arguments have been offered that establish the Universe as abounding with characteristics that are agreeable to science as constituting an appearance of design. This appearance of design is so compelling that it undermines the very foundation of a scientific worldview that presupposes strict materialism. To call into question this strict materialism is to suggest realities that transcend the physical universe. This evidence in tandem with the host of other valid arguments offered give cause to conclude intelligent design, and consequently a Creator. There is no magic here. The contention is that a reasonable examination of the issues in question here, and even in light of the evidences of science, yield cause for faith and belief in God and the metaphysical.

edit on 22-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

Compelling arguments establish nothing but a particular individuals point of view. Compelling and verifiable facts are an entirely different story. I think your first sentence would be more along the line of truth is it stated " Compelling arguments have been offered the Suggest the universe as abounding...

I appreciate your constructive criticism. These are compelling and verifiable facts.

]mrphilosophias
I previously derived characteristics that objectively constitute an "appearance of design" from the set of every system known to man to have been intelligently designed.This appearance of design is an objective epistemic measure. Science agrees that the aforementioned list of characteristics constitute attributes found in intelligently designed systems. Science also agrees that these characteristics are found in every nook and cranny of the universe. Why is it then that science can't admit that it is therefore likely that the Universe is a system intelligently and efficaciously Created? The reason is because science is not as versatile as it presupposes.

Here are the characteristics again. Would you not agree that these characteristics accompany every complex system known and accepted by scienceto be intelligently designed and created?


Even a brief reflection on this matter would show that complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy, are just some of the hallmarks that accompany systems we know to be designed, and can be understood as strongly indicative of a system created by intelligent life.

Since I don't have the time to translate your posts, I'll just ask nicely: PLAIN ENGLISH PLEASE!!! Painting an outhouse gold and gluing diamonds on it doesn't change the fact that it's full of poop. So let's strip off the gems and gold and see what this argument is really talking about.

AfterInfinity
Since I don't have the time to translate your posts, I'll just ask nicely: PLAIN ENGLISH PLEASE!!! Painting an outhouse gold and gluing diamonds on it doesn't change the fact that it's full of poop. So let's strip off the gems and gold and see what this argument is really talking about.

edit on 23-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I think you will find it quite readable and easy to follow if you try.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

I think you will find it quite readable and easy to follow if you try.

Are you refusing to dumb it down for little ol' me? Why is that? If you want us to critique your essay, perhaps you should take our vocabulary into consideration so as to not make the examination process overly difficult for those of whom you are asking the favor.