Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Here’s a two-page handout intended to explain intelligent design …

arroba Email

… to busy folk who have heard everything they know from trolls or casuistical theologians (the “no conflict between faith and science” crowd*):

Recognizing these evidentiary problems, Materialists invoke a rule of procedure to make their case. They ordain that all the evidence of design will be suppressed because it implies a supernatural cause. One is reminded of a lawyer who invokes the hearsay rule to suppress a dying declaration implicating his client as the cause of death. The Design Theorist replies that science must ignore the implications of the evidence in seeking to explain where it leads. This is particularly necessary in a historical science that depends on competition rather than direct observation and experimentation to test subjective historical narratives that unavoidably impact beliefs about religion, ethics, morals and even government. If the evidence of design is not allowed on procedural grounds then there is no need to engage in the investigation at all. The answer to the question— where do we come from, has a pre-ordained answer—only a material cause. The explanation can never be credible because it is not the product of the evidence, rather it is the product of a decree. Rather than an explanation for the cause of life, it becomes an ideology used to support particular religious beliefs and world views.

Thoughts on the handout?

* No? Really? Whose faith? What science? If there is no detectible evidence of design, as theistic evlutionsts claim, what is the multiverse crowd trying to explain away by claiming there is an accidental infinity of universes?

No police detective would ever ask if a death was caused by “intelligence”.
Seeing that "intelligence" = agency, it is obvious that they do inquire as to te cause. Joe
Well, in terms of a death being caused by intelligence, the police would definitely ask if the death was premeditated (such as first degree murder, which would indicate intelligence) or if it was an accident (such as manslaughter, which does not imply intelligence or forethought). Barb
Police detectives are experts at detecting the cause of a fire or a death. They look for clues to decide if the event was caused by one of three possibilities: (1) intelligence - a mind acting for a purpose, (2) a natural or material cause like a bolt of lightening, or (3) an accident or chance occurrence.
No police detective would ever ask if a death was caused by "intelligence". Ever. They would instead ask if a death was caused by a human being, or perhaps another type of animal... but never "intelligence". "Intelligence" is not a thing that does things... Rather, it is a loosely-defined characteristic of living things. Detectives are not looking for "intelligences" who commit crimes. They look for human beings. This is an important distinction. Cheers, RDFish RDFish
I am a member of the "no conflict between faith and science crowd" but a theistic evolutionist, hardly. Never, in fact. :-) Who is this crowd, anyway?? tgpeeler
F/N: Could you perhaps link the handout separately from an embed in the quote? A useful bit of work. KF kairosfocus

Leave a Reply