A friend draws our attention to a current festival in Britain, “How the light gets in,” with presenters in the sci tech area such as:
Steve Fuller, one of the few philosophers of science who has tried to write seriously about the ID community (Dissent over Descent)
Massimo Pigliucci (one of the Altenberg 16, back when challenging Darwinism wasn’t normal) “This morning, Massimo Pigliucci poses the radical question: does science need evidence?”*
Rupert Sheldrake, who challenged Darwinism back in the late 1960s, when it was the sign of a sick mind.
Denis Noble, who, many say, is the point man behind the rethinking evolution project (here).
See how many others you spot.
* An attempted non-radical answer: Not if science doesn’t need funding.
See also: Royal Society to announce guest list for “rethink evolution” meeting – at last
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: Darwin’s boys try enforcing against the Royal Society If one doesn’t deal honestly with the information most people actually already know, it’s one’s own rep that is on the line. That goes for the Royal Society as much anyone else.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
News, although all the people you have mentioned have said things that are worth reflecting on, I would like to focus in on one thing that Professor Steve Fuller said. Steve William Fuller, who is a philosopher in the field of science and technology studies, puts the hidden, but blatant, Theistic presupposition that scientists, who are trying to find a ‘theory of everything’, have like this:
And indeed professor Steve Fuller is completely correct to say,,,,
The reason professor Steve Fuller is completely correct to say what he said is because there are an infinite number of true mathematical theorems that exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms. In other words, the belief that there should be a unification between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, (i.e. a mathematical theory of everything), does not follow from the math, but is a belief that is born out of Theistic presuppositions.
Though not directly addressing Godel’s incompleteness, none-the-less, Steven Weinberg, an atheist who had a hand in formulating the ‘standard model’ in the 1960’s, basically agrees with Steve Fuller’s assessment that mathematical descriptions should be limited in their explanatory scope. He puts ‘the fix’ that atheists are in like this:
Even Hawking himself agreed that Godel’s incompleteness proves that there will never truly be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’:
As to Weinberg’s question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’, Bruce Gordon answers that question rather bluntly, but clearly, here:
And when the Agent causality of Theists is rightly let ‘back’ into the picture of physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, (instead of the self refuting ‘blind’ causality of atheists),
,,when Agent causality, i.e. God, is rightly let back into the picture of physics, then a empirically backed unification between Quantum Theory and Relativity readily pops out for us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from death:
Verses and Music