Science has gone mad. Or, so it seems.
The materialist urge seems to be so great that every branch of science now appears to be lurching toward the Darwinian paradigm, which, as I indicate in the title of this OP, is, basically, the “mother of materialism”!
Here’s why I say this.
We’ve just finished (or, are beginning, or, something) with Chaitin’s search for “evolving software”. He wants to prove the Darwinian paradigm true by building a software that can maintain its evolving ways. In the course of doing this, he reaches the conclusion that mathematics is “more biological than biology itself, which merely contains extremely large finite complexity” (and not the “infinite” complexity the software program requires).
So, mathematics is more “biological than biology itself”. And evolutionary psychology can explain why we do the things we do (or, so they tell us).
And, now, the coup de grace, comes for the field of physics. I just finished reading a paper by Alan Guth, the inventor, if you will, of the theory of inflation. In a 2000/1 paper on “eternal inflation”—which leads directly to “multiverses” and such (he calls them “pocket universes” in his paper), we’re treated to this third, and final “implication of eternal inflation”:
I would argue that once one accepts eternal inflation as a logical possibility, then there is no contest in comparing an eternally inflating version of inflation with any theory that is not eternal.
Immediately follows the best part:
Consider the analogy of going into the woods and finding some rare species of rabbit that has never before been seen. You could either assume that the rabbit was created by a unique cosmic event involving the improbable collision of a huge number of molecules, or you could assume that the rabbit was the result of the normal process of rabbit reproduction, even though there are no viable candidates for the rabbit’s parents. I think we would all consider the latter possibility to be far more plausible. Once we become convinced that universes can eternally reproduce, then the situation becomes very similar, and the same logic should apply. It seems far more plausible that our universe was the result of universe reproduction than that it was created by a unique cosmic event.
Somehow, no matter the starting point, all of science tends towards Darwinism. It is as if once you accept materialism as being the only acceptable worldview, then only infinite replications can explain reality. And damn be Occham’s Razor!!
Darwinism: the materialist perspective that has spawn so many children.
(All of this is merely an observation I’m making that I thought would interest those of us who support ID. Others need not comment.)