LC also has some food for thought for Friday fun:
LC, 18: >>From the OP “Today’s dominant school of thought can become tomorrow’s dead theory, often one funeral at a time.” This is true. Every time they find another fossil they have to re-organize their phylogenetic trees. Some trees have been changed so many times it’s almost like watching a game of three card monte, trying to figure out where the Lady is going to be located this time around.
“Next, we must recognize that without people, there is no science.” I would add that without people there is also no scientism. We can attempt to rationalize why creeping scientism is on the creep but this is a waste of time. It’s human nature and like many other things it’s a moral crime at the least and at the worst it leads to a slide into the abyss.
People commit crimes against others for three reasons. And only three reasons. For greed of money, sexual lust and the pursuit of power. From murder to misdemeanors there are only these root causes.
Take Alexander Rosenberg cited in the OP. A 1960’s radical leftist who has been ensconced in academia his entire adult life, I reckon his motivation is once he found out economics was a complete crock he focused on the philosophy of science as a means to stay employed. After all, it’s not like Darwinism informs advancement of any science, it’s just that it needs active priests like him to keep people in line. So I put him down for greed of money, and idle thoughts of power over what other people are allowed to think. Modern Unis like Duke are not in the business of enlightenment but about raking in as much cash as possible while ensuring anyone wanting to pursue a life of the mind shares the same mindset of the Ubermenschen.
“So, we know that where we see reliable signs of design, we are warranted to infer that as best explanation….” As an example of this I was scouting a hunting lease this week and came across a figure 4 deadfall trap. This was evidence that some person was there actively trapping small game on land I paid money to reserve for myself. If you don’t know what a figure 4 deadfall is this 3:47 video will make you an expert at identifying them in the wild. (Viewer discretion advised.)
If you were walking around the deep woods, the nearest road two miles away, the nearest habitation more than 20, and came across something like this what would you think about it? How did this thing get here? Clearly, the A-Mats among us would declare “The wind, rain and lightning caused wild fires that caused those three sticks to be cut at just the right places and positioned so they could support that 10 pound rock they’re holding up entirely by chance. It may have taken a decade or so to evolve here.”
The figure 4 trap is pretty simple and can be constructed with found objects and crude tools as the video shows. But they don’t assemble themselves at random by chance. Would you agree that if you found one of these in the woods it was made by a designer? That there was another mind involved in constructing it?
Let’s examine the branches from the spruce tree that were used for the three sticks that I found. A single cell from the spruce has only 12 chromosomes but more than 7 times the DNA of a human cell. Somehow, we’re not entirely certain, the genetic material in the cells produce a living organism that reproduces itself by production of male and female gametes, transferring the male gametes to the female ovules by pollination. This results in seeds that are dispersed by the wind, water and animals, the process continuing for at least the past 136 million years. A self-replicating living organism, established around the entire planet, and nothing but random chance is involved?
Compare the complexity of the figure 4 deadfall trap, which you have to admit, is not that complicated but never-the-less contains reliable sign of design, against the complexity of the living cell and its nearly unbelievable complexity. A living cell is much more complicated. But we’re told by folks running the three card monte that if we think it did not occur by random chance we must be some kind of snake handling bible basher down from the hills.
I assure you, we’re not.>>
Again, food for thought. Is functionally specific complex organisation a good sign of design? Why/why not? Is “moral crime” fair comment? And so forth. END