Monday, September 26, 2005
The Confusion of Intelligent Design Opponents
Chris Mooney, author of the Republican War on Science, was on WIP Sunday morning, when they don't discuss sports for two hours for some reason. I'm guessing to fulfill public service requirements for their FCC license.
I called in and had a good conversation with Mr. Mooney. My basic jist was this: as we've seen from Anthony Flew's move away from atheism due to ID and a number of atheist scientists who have been postulating multiple universes in order to get around the need for design and a Designer, do you think science is too closely tied to atheistic materialism?
Well, this led to a good back and forth. Mr. Mooney tried to argue that science couldn't prove the supernatural (I agree that science can't do that directly), so ID was out-of-bounds from the outset. To which, I drove home the point that there is a difference between using science to determine design and the implications of the answer of that question.
If science can't determine if design is present, they may as well shut down SETI.
Once I finally got this point across to Mr. Mooney, he attempted to say the evidence for design was weak. To which I asked, "so weak that Anthony Flew moved away from atheism?" "What's one conversion?" was the reply.
Good point. The truth or falsity of the ID position doesn't rest on what Mr. Flew says. However, my point that the ID movement is not completely bunk stands. Esp. when you consider all those multiple universe-types not liking how fine-tuned our universe is to allow for life.
The call was then ended.
So in the course of five minutes, I moved Mr. Mooney from saying that Intelligent Design was outside the realm of science to him trying to say something about the merits of design. I guess we can do that afterall.
My main point?
So many scientists with an atheistic worldview don't like the implications of being able to determine design? Let's have the debate and allow science to inform the debate. Frankly, I don't care what implications you like or don't like.
Chris Mooney, author of the Republican War on Science, was on WIP Sunday morning, when they don't discuss sports for two hours for some reason. I'm guessing to fulfill public service requirements for their FCC license.
I called in and had a good conversation with Mr. Mooney. My basic jist was this: as we've seen from Anthony Flew's move away from atheism due to ID and a number of atheist scientists who have been postulating multiple universes in order to get around the need for design and a Designer, do you think science is too closely tied to atheistic materialism?
Well, this led to a good back and forth. Mr. Mooney tried to argue that science couldn't prove the supernatural (I agree that science can't do that directly), so ID was out-of-bounds from the outset. To which, I drove home the point that there is a difference between using science to determine design and the implications of the answer of that question.
If science can't determine if design is present, they may as well shut down SETI.
Once I finally got this point across to Mr. Mooney, he attempted to say the evidence for design was weak. To which I asked, "so weak that Anthony Flew moved away from atheism?" "What's one conversion?" was the reply.
Good point. The truth or falsity of the ID position doesn't rest on what Mr. Flew says. However, my point that the ID movement is not completely bunk stands. Esp. when you consider all those multiple universe-types not liking how fine-tuned our universe is to allow for life.
The call was then ended.
So in the course of five minutes, I moved Mr. Mooney from saying that Intelligent Design was outside the realm of science to him trying to say something about the merits of design. I guess we can do that afterall.
My main point?
So many scientists with an atheistic worldview don't like the implications of being able to determine design? Let's have the debate and allow science to inform the debate. Frankly, I don't care what implications you like or don't like.
Comments:
<< Home
I would only say to that that I think the suppression is subconscious, also backing that with Romans 1.
Post a Comment
<< Home
