Extraterrestrial life Intelligent Design

Anti-ID neuroscientist is totally onboard with SETI. But whoops!

Spread the love

Michael Egnor, on a roll, notes that materialist atheist neuroscientist Steven Novella inadvertently makes a case for intelligent design:

He thinks that the inference to design is good science.

He thinks information content is significant. So…

He’s right. The inference to design is of great value if design is detected, but it is also of great value even if design is not detected, because the design inference is a great starting point from which to study a complex system. The questions “Why is this system made the way it is?” and “What is its purpose?” are excellent scientific questions and are of fundamental importance, even if design is eventually discounted.

Michael Egnor, “Foe of Intelligent Design Makes a Great Case for ID Science” at Evolution News and Science Today:

Only trolls truly disagree that the design inference is worth pursuing—as Dr. Novella demonstrates by not truly disagreeing, when it is something he cares about.


Also: Materialism is an intellectual trap, out of which neuroscience needs to climb Neurologist Steven Novella refutes himself. He first asserts that everything he knows is an illusion. Then he insists that his illusions slap him in the face with reality.

One Reply to “Anti-ID neuroscientist is totally onboard with SETI. But whoops!

  1. 1

    .
    The ID skeptics on this site can’t even speak the words. You can point out to them that Peirce’s famous requirements for signification were the whole point of Turing’s machine; which Von Neumann then used to predict the conditions that would eventually be found by the likes of Crick, Brenner, Zamecnik, Hoagland, Nirenberg and others; the very same physical conditions that Pattee demonstrated (beginning about five decades ago) to be exactly the multi-referent symbol system it was originally predicted to be, and also the very same phenomena that SETI has been hoping to find in the open sky for more than 35 years. One of them gets exasperated at the history, while others throw out irrelevant observations or feign emotional distress of some sort or another. None engage.

Leave a Reply