Stephen Meyer interview with Ben Shapiro

Axel, he believed in steady state cosmology I think. It was dominant until ugly facts came along and in the 60's decisively pointed to a beginning of the physical world. Such a cosmos was clearly conceived by some as infinite in time past as well as in space and contents. The obvious absurdities did not move them, or were not taken as serious enough to be decisive. KF PS: Schaeffer (as adjusted and augmented) is truly powerfully insightful. PPS: Notice, Crick's letter. Notice too, who are ever so conspicuously silent. kairosfocus

So do I, Kairosfocus ; but then Albert did, as well. didn't he ? But I must say the sweep of the nihilist contagion you indicated in your post, made fascinating reading, and makes a lot of sense. Axel

Axel, I doubt the cosmos is infinite. Sadly, we can advance in folly beyond any limit. As to how this worked, it was part of a wider ideological and worldview ferment that took centuries, we are simply seeing the acceleration as our civilisation crashes over the cliff of nihilistic marches of folly. Along the way, leaders of thought, arts, opinion and science lent their prestige, even as church leadership lost its way amid thickets of ill founded hyperskepticism about the scriptures, the gospel, God. Today, our civilisation is suicidally depressed and seriously irrational. And when ordinary people rise up in peasant's revolts . . . look at the electoral maps of recent UK and US elections . . . the elites have turned on them. Meanwhile, the Epstein scandal (has anyone seen a certain Prince of Windsor recently?) and others to come are unravelling the core. A civilisational storm is here, but our God rides on the storms! KF PS: I suggest a read here and here from a curse unit draft. kairosfocus

How do they get away with it, Kairosfocus ? How did they ever get away with it ? 'Truth is stranger than fiction', must potentially be one of the most horrifying truisms we can conceive of. No wonder Einstein quipped : 'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.' What am I saying ? Quipped ? Axel

Axel, my comment in the end is that in the heart of the living cell we find digital, alphanumeric, coded algorithmic string data structures with abundant functionally specific, complex information. This is manifestly a linguistic phenomenon [recognised at the outset by Sir Francis Crick in his March 19, 1953 letter to his son Michael, written in his own handwriting and with sketches], and language is a signature of language-using intelligence. That this has not long since settled the matter beyond reasonable dispute speaks volumes, and not in the favour of the dominant ideology of evolutionary materialistic scientism. There is a lot of other evidence, but this is what tells us that the root problem is ideological, not logical and certainly not scientific. KF PS: I will add to the OP, an image of p. 5 of Crick's letter. kairosfocus

I came across an article by Donald De Marco, in the online Catholic journal Crisis, concerning Newman, Sheen and Chesterton, in which I found these two paragraphs on ID very satisfying to read : 'In the contemporary world, the notion of Intelligent Design is hotly debated. Neither Chesterton nor Sheen nor Newman had much trouble acknowledging that this universe and all its highly organized content was created by a Supreme Being, that the design we find in the world is the handiwork of an intelligent designer. Newman states the following: “Science gives us the grounds of premises from which religious truths are to be inferred; but it does not set about inferring them, much less does it reach the inferences; that is not its province. It brings before us phenomena, and it leaves us, if we will, to call them works of design, wisdom, or benevolence; and further still, if we will, to proceed to confess an Intelligent Creator.” "Science itself, given its limited methodology, does not offer a scientific proof for the existence of God, but it does lead us to the doorstep. The philosophies of Newman, Sheen, and Chesterton make that transition from the natural to the supernatural world. They follow and develop the line of thought provided by Aristotle and Aquinas. It is in accord with common sense that the multifarious splendors of creation could not have created themselves. The cause must be greater than the effect. There must be a God.'" It is always good to see the common sense underpinning a concept, made explicit, and to see the arguments so often expressed here in the kind of pedantic support of ID that A/Mats require. In that regard I was tickled to read : 'It is in accord with common sense that the multifarious splendors of creation could not have created themselves. The cause must be greater than the effect. There must be a God.' I believe I get more of a buzz from explications of common-sense concepts, so trivially obvious that a child would be incredulous, not to say, disdainful, to hear them questioned, and furthermore, analyzed and justified, than most other dialectical exercises. Axel

Did Jordan Peterson listen? lol... jstanley01

Video of a current [--> recent] event: Stephen Meyer interview with Ben Shapiro -- starts from the "pseudoscience" accusation at Wikipedia. kairosfocus