Ran across this Biola video lecture (in course BB ST 450) on scientism in a thread from a few months back, HT BA77 as usual.
I think it is well worth pondering:
[youtube lnxrmF9O1ko]
So, thoughts? END
Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Ran across this Biola video lecture (in course BB ST 450) on scientism in a thread from a few months back, HT BA77 as usual.
I think it is well worth pondering:
[youtube lnxrmF9O1ko]
So, thoughts? END
You must be logged in to post a comment.
F/N: Scientism — roughly, the notion that “science” captures and.or delimits objectivity, rationality and knowledge — is a pivotal issue, not only in debates over signs of design in the natural world (the key ID question) but much more broadly in the midst of a worldviews clash driven ideological conflict that rends our civilisation. KF
Morning kf, I have to re-watch that video this morning if I get the time. As well kf, if you are interested in helping, I need some ‘math’ help from you if you can spare the time. My problem is this. I just watched this video this morning,,
,,, where at the 23:50 minute mark in the video, Sean McDowell makes reference to this quote by Roger Penrose:
In which, unlike Penrose’s number of 1 in 10^10^123 for the initial entropy of the universe, Roger Penrose apparently combines the fine-tuning of all the constants together into one calculation in order, I believe, to derive another that cannot be written down in its entirety. Thus kf, can you tell me, number 1, approximately what that number is as of now (since I know they keep refining as more accurate measurements are made)? and number 2, can you give me just a rough entry level overview as to how the number may be derived? Thanks in advance for any light you may shed.
A few related notes;
Thanks again in advance for any help you can give.
Thanks for re-listing the video kf, I had forgotten how good Dr. Rittenhouse is in this lecture.
BA: I dunno, a number like 10^10^123 — 1 followed by 10^123 0s — does involve more 0s than the 10^80 or so particles of the observed cosmos. KF
Thanks kf, here’s what I found on the topic:
Guess I have to take a closer look at these:
‘So we can conclude that it is highly unlikely that the universe has taken its form by chance alone.’
Sounds comical enunciating it as blandly as that, doesn’t it? What the partisans of scientism have reduced you guys to, eh! Spelling out kindergarten implications for the benefit of atheist scientism’s finest!
Having grown up an agnostic adolescent, the temptation to pepper the point with expletives for emphasis, and to release pent-up outrage would, I fear, have been almost have been overwhelming.