Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Thomistic Approach to Intelligent Design

arroba Email

Next up in our Engineering and Metaphysics series is Thomist physicist and philosopher Alex Sich who gives both enthusiastic support and harsh criticisms to the Intelligent Design project. If I understand his objection correctly, he believes that ID is incorrectly and incoherently mixing categories of knowledge, not making proper distinctions of terms, and confusing univocal and analogous modes of reasoning. His call is for ID’ers to take a deeper look into metaphysics, and have a better understanding of philosophy before engaging in the public dialogue.

If your video isn’t displaying, the YouTube link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieqCqoKiLmk

When he references a previous lecture, he is referring to this one.

Pull quote – “I think that one must be literally out of their mind to deny design in nature…to deny the ability to see design in nature is to deny one’s rationality…we, as rational agents, reason to higher immaterial verities based on what we collect…from our sensory knowledge (science)”

JB: In listening, I see much made of the comparison that ID opposes not sci but materialism. And the point is made that this classifies it as a phil project. I do not doubt that here are aspects where that would be so, but I think this does not invalidate the empirical inference. Materialism entails certain empirical consequences, namely that design is not possible under certain circumstances. But, so long as we have cases where we can reasonably observe design and its traces, then we can ask: do we have credibly reliable signs. I think something like FSCO/I answers, yes. In that case we may infer that design as process -- a known real world process of causation -- can leave a reliable marker in the result of that type of self-moved initiating cause by deliberate and purposeful at work. Then, we can look at the evo mat paradigm and subject it to an empirical test, per correspondence to credible reality. For instance, FSCO/I in life points strongly to design of life, long before designers would be reasonable on evo mat. And, FSCO/I in the architecture of the cosmos itself points to design before material realities existed and as a cause of the particular way such exists. In short, evo mat views run into the problem that hey fail to adequately account for FSCO/I, and there is a better explanation on the table. So, we have good reason to conclude evo mat is false. Without walking away from inductive logic into realms regarded as enormously suspect by those immersed in the modern milieu. KF kairosfocus
Hi JB: Hard at work still, I see. Can you get the PPT for this too? (and, were you able to contact Dr Bradley for his PPT?) KF kairosfocus

Leave a Reply