Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Science IS Intelligent Design


It is the common, uninformed and apparently biased expression of many anti-ID advocates that “science” makes all sorts of discoveries and advances, while Intelligent Design makes none.  This is claimed as if science and ID are two entirely different things.

Although not under the specific label of “Intelligent Design”, the inventors of modern science believed in an orderly universe created for a purpose by an intelligent, rational creator.  Science is a methodology that relies upon several metaphysical assumptions that reflect the views of those who created it, even though the are unspoken, unrecognized by many, and often even denied.  Johann Kepler considered the scientific process the act of “thinking God’s thoughts after him” by uncovering both the systems of the physical universe and the apparent non-physical rules that governed those systems (mathematics, natural laws, universal constants, etc.)

It is puzzling that now many scientists insist that science is a materialistic, atheistic endeavor, and that it always has been, when it has only been the case for the past 50 years or so that an atheistic/materialist perspective has become vogue in the scientific community (at least in the west). They insist that the old giants of science like Newton and Kepler kept their religious beliefs separate from their scientific studies, when nothing could be further from the truth. Their religious beliefs infused and motivated their scientific studies.  Indeed, fundamentally religious or spiritual metaphysical beliefs are required for doing proper scientific research; one must fundamentally hold that the universe is orderly as if that order was under the direction of a single will and not multiple competing wills, chaos or chance; that unseen laws govern physical behaviors universally; that force values are constant through time and space; that humans have some sort of correlating capacity to correctly observe and understand that order and those values; that truth exists and can be catalogued and understood (as facts); that humans have some sort of top down power of the physiology of their bodies and chemical makeup of their brain in order to supplant erroneous ideas of the physical world with ones corrected via observation and experiment; that logic and mathematics are metaphysical arbiters of true and false conclusions and calculations, etc.

None of that fundamental framework for science can be rationally extracted from an atheistic/materialist ideological foundation, which is why science didn’t start flourishing until ancient Grecian logic was infused with the monotheistic metaphysics of Europe and the Middle East during the Enlightenment.  Those basic assumptions that modern, successful (productive) science requires are aspects of a monotheistic, rational Intelligent Design worldview and are indeed precluded by the atheistic/materialist worldview and are largely unproductive under the polytheistic and animistic views of the East. Not only can you not get from atheism/materialism to a successful scientific methodology via any rational avenue; that worldview doesn’t even allow for such a methodology because science requires assumptions that contradict the A/M perspective and its logical entailments.

That doesn’t mean that A/M scientists cannot do science, but they must do so using methodologies that logically require ID assumptions in order to be held as even potentially valid. They might be unaware of this or deny it, but the historical and logical fact remains that scientific methodology as we know it today was entirely built by IDists and operates under the assumption that the ID perspective is true and that A/M is false, and that every scientific theory and experiment is generated by the intelligent design of humans who consider ID to be both valid and the proper means by which to understand the universe.

Think of it; unless ID is actually a real thing that is fundamentally different from chance interactions under physics and chemistry; unless we have supernatural power over our brain physiology that generates thoughts, unless we agree that ID is fundamentally valid and somehow corresponds with the reality of the universe, why would we assume that our intelligently-designed experiments and rationally-examined methodology towards conclusions could produce anything other than happenstance, chemically-driven interactions in our brain along with whatever sensations of thought they happen to produce? Why should we consider mathematics and logic, which undergird the validity of scientific theories and discoveries, to be anything other than chance fluctuations in brain chemistry that may vary from time to time, and may or may not have anything at all to do with the real world?

Science is, and always has been, the methodology of intelligent design examining what is presumed to be designed by intelligence for intelligent comprehension.  Atheistic materialism has no valid scientific methodology because its premises don’t allow for such correspondences and capacities.

EDITED TO ADD: TL;DR: Atheistic materialists ask, “What has ID produced?” The response should be: “What hasn’t it produced?” Humans employing intelligent design, operating via ID principles through a methodology that was invented by IDists and operates entirely via ID assumptions, and produces what can only be verified and evaluated via ID mechanisms and logic which assumes an ID core, have generated virtually everything beyond the brute capacity to simply exist as animals. The proper question is, what has atheistic materialism produced?  Virtually nothing other than an irrational, self-defeating, nihilistic delusion.

William J Murray, ref. your post #8, shouldn't 'retro-engineering' be renamed, 'retro-happenstance or 'retro-randomness', by those atheist 'money'men', who keep the perception and teaching of science in their thrall? I would like to design a watch-face with an original, aesthetically-pleasing face, but I think I'll just leave a piece of paper and a pencil for happenstance to do the work. Why should I sweat to do something I've no training or experience in ? Axel
Thanks very much for that, BA77. I can see I'll have plenty to keep me occupied and fascinated for a good while. I really look forward to finding good new NDE videos. Watching them raises my spirits no end. They resonate with my own non-medical experiences in some of the features they describe - apart from being beautiful and enthralling in their own right. I'm rather envious of the 3D, cinemascope technicolor clarity of their experiences and their wider social aspect. I would be more than joyful if heaven were just meeting up again with my family, friends and acquaintances again, but in perfect circumstances. Still, I know there will be much more than that, and that love and an utterly blissful, heavenly beauty will combine with strange half-memories from infancy, when we 'still trailed clouds of glory', as Wordsworth put it. There seems to be evidence, scriptural, as well as in some NDEs, that we had some kind of pre-existence in Christ. Axel
What Happens When We Die? - Interview w/ Pastor John Burke https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLsqyvLAN8I bornagain77
Axel, since I know you watch Near Death Experience (NDE) accounts every once in a while, and since, as mentioned in posts 5, 6, and 9, everything (i.e. observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, reality itself, and even the evidence for evolution), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination, then I think you may appreciate this tidbit. It turns out that Near Death Experiences are 'even more real than real': In the following study, researchers who had a bias against Near Death Experiences (NDEs) being real, set out to prove that they were merely hallucinations. They tried to prove that NDEs were merely illusions by setting up a clever questionnaire that could differentiate which memories a person had were real and which memories a person had were merely imaginary. They did not expect the results they got:
‘Afterlife’ feels ‘even more real than real,’ researcher says – Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: “If you use this questionnaire … if the memory is real, it’s richer, and if the memory is recent, it’s richer,” he said. The coma scientists weren’t expecting what the tests revealed. “To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors,” Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. “The difference was so vast,” he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich “as though it was yesterday,” Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/ Memories of Near Death Experiences (NDEs): More Real Than Reality? – Mar. 27, 2013 Excerpt: University of Liège ,,,researchers,, have looked into the memories of NDE with the hypothesis that if the memories of NDE were pure products of the imagination, their phenomenological characteristics (e.g., sensorial, self referential, emotional, etc. details) should be closer to those of imagined memories. Conversely, if the NDE are experienced in a way similar to that of reality, their characteristics would be closer to the memories of real events. The researchers compared the responses provided by three groups of patients, each of which had survived (in a different manner) a coma, and a group of healthy volunteers. They studied the memories of NDE and the memories of real events and imagined events with the help of a questionnaire which evaluated the phenomenological characteristics of the memories. The results were surprising. From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327190359.htm
Here are a few testimonies testifying to that ‘even more real than real’ effect in NDEs:
A Doctor’s Near Death Experience (NDE) Inspires a New Life – video Quote: “It’s not like a dream. It’s like the world we are living in is a dream and it’s kind of like waking up from that.” Dr. Magrisso http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-air/as-seen-on/A-Doctor--186331791.html Medical Miracles – Dr. Mary Neal’s Near Death Experience – video (More real than real 37:49 minute mark) https://youtu.be/WCNjmWP2JjU?t=2269 “More real than anything I’ve experienced since. When I came back of course I had 34 operations, and was in the hospital for 13 months. That was real but heaven is more real than that. The emotions and the feelings. The reality of being with people who had preceded me in death.” – Don Piper – “90 Minutes in Heaven,” 10 Years Later – video (2:54 minute mark) https://youtu.be/3LyZoNlKnMM?t=173 Dr. Eben Alexander Says It’s Time for Brain Science to Graduate From Kindergarten – 10/24/2013 Excerpt: To take the approach of, “Oh it had to be a hallucination of the brain” is just crazy. The simplistic idea that NDEs (Near Death Experiences) are a trick of a dying brain is similar to taking a piece of cardboard out of a pizza delivery box, rolling it down a hill and then claiming that it’s an identical event as rolling a beautiful Ferrari down a hill. They are not the same at all. The problem is the pure materialist scientists can be so closed-minded about it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-peschke/near-death-experiences_b_4151093.html
Supplemental notes:
Imagine Heaven - video series Description: John Burke has researched over a thousand accounts of people who have experienced life after death and come back to share their experience, as well as interviewed several in person. He’s researched what the Bible, scholars and experts have to say on the topic. Youtube playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAx2w5l0LlY&list=PLy61gU5NWK15AZfCB_RurkltZQ_Ldm3w9 Special Relativity and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbKELVHcvSI&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=1
Verses and Music:
Luke 23:42-43 And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up even to the third heaven. And I know such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth), how that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Hillary Scott & The Scott Family - Thy Will (Lyric Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAmh3yvmzXs
What a team you two make ! All it will take now, perhaps, is WWIII and the Parousia for your combined work to become the received canon of scientific orthodoxy. Historic figures in the cronicles of science and philosophy. It all makes perfect sense, so that rendered into the plainest terms, maybe 'bullet' form, the non-academic person would find nothing untoward about it. They knew it all along. But teasing it all out of the atheists' hegemonic mumbo jumbo, required very special inspiration, imo. Parenthetically, I think that atheist twaddle has been hegemonic for a few decades more than fifty years. Reading the many observations made by Einstein relating to science, metaphysics and its proponents in his day, mild-mannered though he was, he seemed to have a little difficulty in concealing his contempt for those proponents of the prevailing atheist zeitgeist. And it does seem quite comical to find the latter trying to affect possession of Einstein's expressed desiderata ; even to the extent of pretending they appreciate the reality and significance of such concepts as intuition, imagination and beauty/'elegance. Sometimes they use the term appropriately, but I love the way they call some discovery 'counter-intuitive', when what they actually mean is 'desperately paradoxical, mysterious and repugnant to reason' ! And unless a person were severely cognitively impaired, he surely wouldn't need a flash of intuition to grasp the fact that, on the face of it, it defied reason. Just the most elementary logic of a young child. Axel
Another primordial, though mysteriously veiled, truism, identified with embarrassing clarity by William J Murray ! Another ace. No wonder all the great paradigm-changers were all instinctively, and consciously by the light of elementary reasoning, unambiguous ID partisans ! Also, as Origenes intimated, another apologetics match-winner of a post by BA77. This whole site has been 'on a roll' lately, freed from the demeaning, because inevitably fruitless, mentoring of atheist naifs, who 'fancy their barrow' against Christian apologetics - until it all gets a little too much for them. Axel
Thank you for sharing your profound insight Bornagain77. Origenes
Origenes, your 'failure to designate proper contexts' is a very penetrating observation for you to make about the primary failure concerning all the purported explanations of Atheistic Materialism. Around the 13:20 minute mark of the following video Pastor Joe Boot comments on the self-defeating nature of the atheistic/materialistic worldview in regards to providing an overarching ‘design plan’, i.e. a 'proper context'
"If you have no God, then you have no design plan for the universe. You have no preexisting structure to the universe.,, As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It's just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There's no design plan. It's like my kids do 'join the dots' puzzles. It's just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no preestablished pattern (to connect the facts given atheism)." Pastor Joe Boot - Defending the Christian Faith – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqE5_ZOAnKo
Moreover, Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem for mathematics has succinctly been stated like this: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.
"Gödel's incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel (ref. on cite), halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”. Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010) @ 15-6
Kurt Gödel went on to state
“In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.” Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996. [9.4.12]
This "Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself" even applies to the human body. That is to say, for the human body to be considered a unified whole "it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.” In fact one of the greatest unanswered questions in molecular biology for us personally is the question of “What is it exactly that is coordinating the billions of trillions of constituent parts of a human body to act as a single unified whole?” Stephen L. Talbott puts that unanswered question for materialistic explanations like this:
HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling… and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2
In another article, Talbott goes on to put the question even more directly like this, “the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”
The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott – 2010 Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings
And due to the advance of science, particularly advances within quantum biology, there is now scientific evidence for a transcendent component to our being. Namely, there is now tentative physical evidence strongly indicating that our bodies do indeed contain a single 'unifying soul'. A few notes to that effect:
Scientific evidence that we do indeed have an eternal soul (Elaboration on Talbott's question “What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”)– video 2016 https://youtu.be/h2P45Obl4lQ Molecular Biology - 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCs3WXHqOv8
Verses and Music:
Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Mark 8:36 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 1 Corinthians 12:12 One Body but Many Parts There is one body, but it has many parts. But all its many parts make up one body. It is the same with Christ. We were all baptized by one Holy Spirit. And so we are formed into one body. Michael Card & John Michael Talbot – One Faith https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgYguIi7fMI
According A/M there are only fermions and bosons:
The basic things everything is made up of are fermions and bosons. That’s it. … everything is made up of these two kinds of things. Roughly speaking, fermions are what matter is composed of, while bosons are what fields of force are made of. [Rosenberg]
If there are just fermions and bosons, then how do we get to things with higher-level identities? If the context of the purposeless subatomic world is the proper context for all of reality, then how do we ground things like “mother”, “observation” and “scientific method” — things that can only be understood in totally different contexts? It is A/M's claim that higher-level contexts are illusionary and must be replaced by the context of the subatomic world. However, in order to make this claim — in order to make any claim at all — A/M is forced to use contexts which it deems illusionary. Therefore A/M’s claim is self-referentially incoherent. If the claim is true, then the claim does not exist. Origenes
WJM, one more note, as if everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapsing into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination was not bad enough, the coup de grâce is that Darwinists also claim that the design we see pervasively throughout life is only an 'appearance of design'. In other words, the design we see in life is, besides everything else, becomes illusory too. Richard Dawkins puts the situation this way.
“Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21 quoted from this video – Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – 2010 – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY Can Darwinian Evolutionary Theory Be Taken Seriously? - Stephen L. Talbott – May 17, 2016 Excerpt: Julian Huxley, who coined the phrase “Modern Synthesis” to describe the now canonical, twentieth-century formulation of what is also called “neo-Darwinism”, wrote in 1942: “It was one of the great merits of Darwin himself to show that the purposiveness of organic structure and function was apparent only. The teleology of adaptation is a pseudo-teleology, capable of being accounted for on good mechanistic principles, without the intervention of purpose, conscious or subconscious, either on the part of the organism or of any outside power”.11 Here, again, we are said to be saved from the “intervention” of an alien force, as if real purpose and intelligence would be an offense against the natural world. And, several decades later, the author who gave us the “selfish gene” warned us how hard it can be to escape illusion: “So overwhelming is the appearance of purposeful design that, even in this Darwinian era when we know ‘better’, we still find it difficult, indeed boringly pedantic, to refrain from teleological language when discussing adaptation”. And yet, Richard Dawkins is ever ready to remind us, “the theory of natural selection provides a mechanistic, causal account of how living things came to look as if they had been designed for a purpose”12 http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2016/teleology_30.htm
Julian Huxley and Richards Dawkins are far from the only prominent atheists who seem to be afflicted with the mental illness of seeing the ‘illusion of design’ pervasively throughout life. The well known atheist Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, seems to have been particularly haunted by seeing the 'illusion of design' everywhere he looked in molecular biology:
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit - p. 138 (1990) “Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 30
Yet, despite the fact that, according to many leading atheists themselves, life gives the overwhelming ‘appearance’ of having been designed for a purpose, all the purported scientific evidence, that is suppose to demonstrate for the rest of us how this overwhelming appearance of design in life came to be by unguided material processes, turns out, itself, to be ‘illusory’. Franklin M. Harold, whom I believe is also an atheist, calls Darwinian accounts ‘a variety of wishful speculations’. Specifically he states:
“,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA
James Shapiro, main founder of the anti neo-Darwinian group "The Third Way", makes an almost verbatim statement prior to Harold's statement:
“The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new […} in fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject — evolution — with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.” Prof. James Shapiro – “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 64.
The late Stephen Jay Gould weighs in here on the evidence free ‘just-so stories’ of Darwinists and states "Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance."
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530
In fact, one of the main themes of many of Michael Behe’s talks is that ALL ‘grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination’:
“Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination” Dr. Michael Behe – 29:24 mark of this following video Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762s “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Michael Behe - Darwin’s Black Box)
Thus, the overwhelming 'appearance of design', that Atheist themselves admit to seeing pervasively throughout life, was apparently produced by scientific evidence that itself turns out to be illusory. Simply put, illusory evidence produced illusory design! :) Perhaps atheists can excuse my illusory self, with my illusory free will, if I find their illusory scientific argument less than compelling? Whereas back in the real world, in the following video, after demonstrating through the mathematics of population genetics that Natural Selection is grossly inadequate as a designer substitute, Dr. Richard Sternberg states:
“Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer -- or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that's out of the way -- if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence -- then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they (really) are designed.” Richard Sternberg - Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson - (excerpted from Living Waters documentary by Illustra Media) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q
Psalm 139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
Leave it to BA77 to flesh out the thesis. Thanks, BA! I'll have additional thoughts later, but for now, in a general stroke - A/M scientists try to avoid ID by appealing to a bottomless ocean of chance. This is actually anti-scientific in nature. I'm thinking that A/M is actually anti-scientific in nature because, like so many other concepts, it has redefined science to mean its antithesis - like free will or morality. I'm still working on this though. William J Murray
[I'm not interested in putting up with your inane, uninformed nonsense on this thread, rvb8. Run along. - WJM] rvb8
And although Dr. Nelson alluded to writing an e-mail, (i.e. creating information), to tie his ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can easily be amended to any action that ‘you’, as a personal agent, choose to take:
“You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t open the door. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t raise your hand. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t etc.. etc.. etc… Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”
Finally, this unconstrained ‘illusory’ nature inherent to naturalism/materialism becomes even more acute when atheists try to explain the origin and sustaining of the universe, i.e. try to explain the origin, fine-tuning, and quantum wave collapse of the universe. That is to say, every time an atheist postulates a random infinity to try to get around the glaringly obvious Theistic implications of the Big Bang, fine-tuning, and the quantum wave collapse, of the universe, then the math surrounding that random infinity tells us that everything that is remotely possible has a 100% chance of happening somewhere in that random infinity of possibilities that the atheist had postulated. Even an infinite number of Richard Dawkins riding on an infinite number of pink unicorns becomes assured in an unconstrained random infinity:
Why Most Atheists Believe in Pink Unicorns – May 2014 Excerpt: Given an infinite amount of time, anything that is logically possible(11) will eventually happen. So, given an infinite number of universes being created in (presumably) an infinite amount of time, you are not only guaranteed to get your universe but every other possible universe. This means that every conceivable universe exists, from ones that consist of nothing but a giant black hole, to ones that are just like ours and where someone just like you is reading a blog post just like this, except it’s titled: “Why most atheists believe in blue unicorns.” By now I’m sure you know where I’m going with this, but I’ll say it anyway. Since we know that horses are possible, and that pink animals are possible, and that horned animals are possible, then there is no logical reason why pink unicorns are not possible entities. Ergo, if infinite universes exist, then pink unicorns must necessarily exist. For an atheist to appeal to multiverse theory to deny the need of a designer infers that he believes in that theory more than a theistically suggestive single universe. And to believe in the multiverse means that one is saddled with everything that goes with it, like pink unicorns. In fact, they not only believe in pink unicorns, but that someone just like them is riding on one at this very moment, and who believes that elephants, giraffes, and zebra are merely childish fairytales. Postscript While it may be amusing to imagine atheists riding pink unicorns, it should be noted that the belief in them does not logically invalidate atheism. There theoretically could be multiple universes and there theoretically could be pink unicorns. However, there is a more substantial problem for the atheist if he wants to believe in them and he wants to remain an atheist. Since, as I said, anything can happen in the realm of infinities, one of those possibilities is the production of a being of vast intelligence and power. Such a being would be as a god to those like us, and could perhaps breach the boundaries of the multiverse to, in fact, be a “god” to this universe. This being might even have the means to create its own universe and embody the very description of the God of Christianity (or any other religion that the atheist otherwise rejects). It seems the atheist, in affirming the multiverse in order to avoid the problem of fine-tuning, finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. The further irony is that somewhere, in the great wide world of infinities, the atheist’s doppelganger is going to war against an army of theists riding on the horns of a great pink beast known to his tribesman as “The Saddlehorn Dilemma.” https://pspruett.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/why-most-atheists-believe-in-pink-unicorns/ WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Infinity – Max Tegmark – January 2014 and Feb. 2015 Excerpt: Physics is all about predicting the future from the past, but inflation seems to sabotage this: when we try to predict the probability that something particular will happen, inflation always gives the same useless answer: infinity divided by infinity. The problem is that whatever experiment you make, inflation predicts that there will be infinitely many copies of you far away in our infinite space, obtaining each physically possible outcome, and despite years of tooth-grinding in the cosmology community, no consensus has emerged on how to extract sensible answers from these infinities. So strictly speaking, we physicists are no longer able to predict anything at all! http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/20/infinity-ruining-physics/#.VOsRyS7cBCA Too many worlds – Philip Ball – Feb. 17, 2015 Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way. That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe (and another you).,,, http://aeon.co/magazine/science/is-the-many-worlds-hypothesis-just-a-fantasy/
Thus, basically, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self. free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasies and imagination. It would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism have turned out to be. Scientists should definitely stick with the worldview that brought them to the dance! i.e Christianity! Verses, Videos and Music:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uHST2uFPQY&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=4 Hillsong United – Taya Smith – Touch The Sky – Acoustic Cover – Live – HD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyl34fHQi3U
Since it ties in so well with this post,,,, I will reiterate something I have posted a few times before. If we cast aside the basic Theistic presuppositions that WJM has so ably highlighted in this post, about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and instead try to use naturalism as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practicing science, then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. observation of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination. For instance, although reliable ‘observation’ of reality is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself,,,
Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
,,, Although reliable ‘observation’ of reality is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method, the reductive materialistic foundation that Darwinian evolution rests upon undermines this necessary cornerstone. That is to say, given materialistic/atheistic premises, not only are our personal beliefs about reality held to be somewhat flawed, and therefore in need of testing, even our perceptions/observations of reality itself are held to be untrustworthy and thus ‘illusory’ given the materialistic premises of atheism. Richard Dawkins puts the awkward situation between Darwinian evolution and reliable observation like this:
Why Atheism is Nonsense Pt.5 – “Naturalism is a Self-defeating Idea”video Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff-5rsrDRGM
In the following video and article, Donald Hoffman has, through numerous computer simulations of population genetics, proved that if Darwinian evolution were actually true then ALL of our perceptions of reality would be illusory.
Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark Quote: “,,,evolution is a mathematically precise theory. We can use the equations of evolution to check this out. We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete and see which survive and which thrive, which sensory systems or more fit. A key notion in those equations is fitness.,,, fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601 The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
Although Hoffman tried to limit his results to just our visual perceptions, as Plantinga had pointed out before Hoffman came along, there is no reason why the results do not also extend to undermining our cognitive faculties as well:
The Case Against Reality - May 13, 2016 Excerpt: Hoffman seems to come to a conclusion similar to the one Alvin Plantinga argues in ch. 10 of Where the Conflict Really Lies: we should not expect — in the absence of further argument — that creatures formed by a naturalistic evolutionary process would have veridical perceptions.,,, First, even if Hoffman’s argument were restricted to visual perception, and not to our cognitive faculties more generally (e.g., memory, introspection, a priori rational insight, testimonial belief, inferential reasoning, etc.), the conclusion that our visual perceptions would be wholly unreliable given natural selection would be sufficient for Plantinga’s conclusion of self-defeat. After all, reliance upon the veridicality of our visual perceptions was and always will be crucial for any scientific argument for the truth of evolution. So if these perceptions cannot be trusted, we have little reason to think evolutionary theory is true. Second, it’s not clear that Hoffman’s application of evolutionary game theory is only specially applicable to visual perception, rather than being relevant for our cognitive faculties generally. If “we find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality” (2010, p. 504, my emphasis), then why wouldn’t veridical cognitive faculties (more generally) be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality? After all, evolutionary theory purports to be the true account of the formation of all of our cognitive faculties, not just our faculty of visual perception. If evolutionary game theory proves that “true perception generally goes extinct” when “animals that perceive the truth compete with others that sacrifice truth for speed and energy-efficiency” (2008), why wouldn’t there be a similar sacrifice with respect to other cognitive faculties? In fact, Hoffman regards the following theorem as now proven: “According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness” (Atlantic interview). But then wouldn’t it also be the case that an organism that cognizes reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that cognizes none of reality but is just tuned to fitness? On the evolutionary story, every cognitive faculty we have was produced by a process that was tuned to fitness (rather than tuned to some other value, such as truth). http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/05/the-case-against-reality/
Thus, in what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding all our observations of reality, and cognitive faculties, are illusory is NOT a worldview that can be firmly grounded within the scientific method!
Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html
Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the math of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory! Moreover, as Nancy Pearcey alluded to in her ‘Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself’ article, given the materialistic/atheistic premises of Darwinian evolution, not only are our observations of reality itself held to be illusory, but even our sense of self, i.e. the belief that we really exist as real persons, which is the most sure thing we can know about reality, becomes illusory too. Thus, in what I consider to be a shining example of poetic justice, in their claim that God does not really exist as a real person but is merely an illusion, the naturalist also ends up claiming that he himself does not really exist as a real person but is merely an illusion. Here are a few quotes to that effect,,,
“that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994 “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. Per NY Times At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion” A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion… what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s
Thus, given materialistic premises, people become illusions whose observations of reality are illusory. And why in blue blazes should anyone trust what illusions having illusions have to say about reality? (of personal note: Edgar Allen Poe's poem "Dream within a Dream" is a fitting reference at this point) Moreover, as Nancy Pearcey alluded to in her article, free will itself also becomes illusory. Thus, under atheistic naturalism there is not really a real person with the free will to choose to believe in, or to not believe in anything, be it believing in God or be it believing in naturalism. There are only illusions of persons who are fed illusions of free will. Moreover these illusions of free will somehow miraculously coincide with the illusory intentions of the illusory self. How the supposed random jostling of atoms in our brain pulls off all this amazing synchronization throughout our entire life is a miracle in its own right!
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014 Excerpt: “Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed (the illusion of) you of that event after the fact. “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.”,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html
This is a very interesting post. It would be great to have this thesis developed further. bill cole
Changed the next to last paragraph to read: Science is, and always has been, the methodology of intelligent design examining what is presumed to be designed by intelligence for intelligent comprehension. Atheistic materialism has no valid scientific methodology because its premises don't allow for such correspondences and capacities. William J Murray
Thanks WJM. bornagain77
The whole endeavor "science" is intelligently designed. Every hypothesis, every experiment and every paper is the result of designing intelligence. Intelligent design permeates science, and yet, in these modern times, hijacked by atheism, the scientific methodology has been (intelligently) designed to deny the validity of the design inference. Origenes

Leave a Reply