This is the first of two food for thought pieces coming from comments in the scientism thread:
Harry, 7: >>Materialistic Scientism Is Fundamentally Irrational
In order to demonstrate how a given instance of functional complexity might come about mindlessly and accidentally, one must first know how to create it intentionally. Then, one can at least begin to explain how the required steps in the functional-complexity-assembling procedure might, over enough time, happen mindlessly, accidentally, and in the necessary sequence, through some combination of chance and the laws of physics.
So, until science knows how to create life – an instance of massive functional complexity – from scratch, they are in no position to insist that it came about mindlessly and accidentally over any amount of time. How can they just assume that it did? They can’t. Not rationally.
It seems that significant functional complexity, certainly when its construction is directed by massive quantities of extremely precise digital information like that found in life’s DNA, is simply beyond the capacity of time, chance and the laws of physics to produce. If that were possible there would be naturally occurring phenomena that exhibit digital information-based functional complexity comparable to that of life. There isn’t even one such natural phenomenon. So on what basis does science insist that life came about mindlessly and accidentally? There is no rational basis for that assumption whatsoever.
Every instance known to us of significant functional complexity (other than that found in life), the construction of which was directed by digitally stored information, came about with intelligent agency as causal factor in its emergence. Every single one. There is simply no reason whatsoever to believe that digital information-based functional complexity can be arrived at mindlessly and accidentally.
So why does science insist on this irrational assumption? It has been perverted by atheism, which denies the existence of realities outside the natural realm (in particular a supernatural, intelligent designer of life). Atheism insists on this without any rational reason to believe that there are no such realities. Ask an atheist exactly why can’t there be realities outside of the realm of the natural. You will find that they have no idea. So how can they be so sure that that is the case? They can’t. And there is much evidence that indicates that there must be supernatural realities that transcend nature other than the evidence that indicates that the emergence of life required a supernatural intelligent designer.
For example, it is now the consensus of modern science that the natural Universe – time, space, matter and energy – had a beginning. Everything that begins to exist has a cause; of that we can be sure. Yet from nothing (nothing in terms of the absence of time, space, matter and energy), nothing comes; of that we can also be sure. This means that the Universe must have been caused by a reality outside of the natural realm – a supernatural reality. The natural Universe’s cause couldn’t have been a natural reality because natural realities are what began to exist. The natural Universe came into being, caused by nothing natural, but by a supernatural reality.
Atheism has perverted science. Contemporary science needs to return to its theistic foundation, namely, that nature’s intelligibility is what makes science possible, and that its intelligibility is due to its Intelligent Author.>>
What are our thoughts? Is it fair comment to suggest that materialistic atheism has ideologised and distorted science? END