In Tuesday night, a guest speaker spoke to my adult night school class in why there is an intelligent design controversy. He talked about the central problem of evolution: The fact that high levels of information are present in life forms that are supposed to be early and simple.
Some guests attended the talk, and one of them announced that if intelligent design is correct, scientists would not see the need to do any research because Goddunit. Or something like that.
The more I thought about what he was saying, the more it puzzled me. Finally, I realized:
For the materialist, the PURPOSE of science is to show that high levels of information can be created without intelligence.
Therefore, in looking for causes of events, the materialist accepts ONLY a solution that shows that high levels of information can come from random assembly (= without intelligence).
He has not shown that high levels of information can be created without intelligence. He assumes that his assertion is true and looks for evidence to support it.
Discoveries that disconfirm his initial belief are not treated as evidence.
Keep looking, he says, keep looking … that magic information mill has GOT to be somewhere!
What if random assembly is not in fact the answer? Then either
1. No solution is found (because there never was any solution in the direction in which he is looking)
or
2. An inadequate solution is patched together and defended as the best available solution – usually that means that claims for the solution are overstated wildly to the public.
But it is the materialist scientist’s duty to keep looking for the magic mill even if the fact that random assembly did not occur is overwhelmingly obvious.
And he displays his virtue to his peers by never questioning the system and by showing hostility and contempt for anyone who does question it.
Given his initial convictions, the materialist cannot believe that a non-materialist is actually doing science. He cannot envision any approach to the fact base that does not have as its base an effort to show that the information was created randomly.
As a matter of fact, the fact base could easily be approached otherwise, and often more fruitfully, too. If we assume that an object in nature is designed, we do not waste time trying to imagine how it could have come about randomly. We study its characteristics and make predictions about its behaviour, function, and so forth.
But that doesn’t help prop up materialism – which seems to be the big project nowadays.
To see why materialism is on a slow train to nowhere, go here. These heroes of materialist evolution theories are at least as sharp as a marshmallow and twice as swift too.
Also, at The Mindful Hack and Post-Darwinist and elsewhere:
Antony Flew: Is he too old Also, New York Times spin: Elderly ex-atheist is just senile.
Intelligence: How much is heredity and how much environment? – the Flynn effect
Books at home predict student success better than parents’ education
US anti-religion group loses standing to fight lawsuits
Faking out brain injury tests – yes, it can be done
AIDS numbers downsized: a learning experience
Grandma was right: Just eat and be thankful
Our weighty obsession – this one should be required reading for teen girls. Eating disorders very often begin with a diet.