Showing posts with label intelligent design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intelligent design. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 30, 2024
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Can This Guy Really Explain Right-Handed Isomers With A Touch Of Humor?
Scientists and philosophers speak of a concept that is called a “theory of everything”. A theory of everything—it is supposed—would provide a logically consistent explanation of the various forces of nature, including perplexing questions like, “where did it all come from?” And, “how does it all really work?” Our current scientific understanding of reality is incomplete…how’s that for an understatement? A theory of everything would comprehensively and consistently help complete this lack of understanding and, of course, a theory of everything would help explain a lot of the questions that we have about that most mysterious of species known as “man”.
Have you ever wondered, “Why did I do that same dumb thing…again!?!” A theory of everything would quite possibly help to explain that. But it probably won’t help you find your car keys. You’re still on your own, there.
That is the ambitious issue Edgar Andrews deals with in this book, “Who Made God?” In fact, the subtitle is: Searching For A Theory Of Everything.
Andrews addresses a range of subjects including cosmology, physics, philosophy, time, Darwinian evolution, the nature of science, mind studies, and morality. What is helpful is that he is able to do so in a way that is understandable to a simple layman like myself. And, he does so with a touch of humor and wit. Believe me, it’s impressive when a guy can explain how left-handed and right-handed isomers apply to amino acids with a touch of humor. (Maybe they ought to hire him to “punch up” Jimmy Fallon’s monologues …..Just a thought.)
Andrews maintains that, ultimately, it is the hypothesis of God that really offers the greatest explanatory power to the big questions of life and existence. Says Andrews, “A true ‘theory of everything’, therefore, must embrace both the material and non-material aspects of the universe, and my contention is that we already possess such a theory, namely, the hypothesis of God.” “The hypothesis of God”, according to Andrews is our best, most complete, most satisfactory theory of everything.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
If You Listen Carefully, You Can Hear The Atheists Screaming
What if a highly respected, well-known, Oxford-educated, atheist philosopher changed his mind, late in his career, and decided that he, now, believed in God?
You say, “Well, he would probably write a book with this kind of sub-title: ‘How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.’”
You’re right. And that brings us to Antony Flew’s book and this review.
This book is a little bit autobiography and a good bit of philosophy with a little bit of the philosophy of science. (It’s everything I can do to resist some kind of reference to: it’s “a little bit country” and “a little bit rock and roll”.)
Flew provides a good bit of information about his background, and this helps the reader see the larger context of his life. I found this to be interesting.
To those of us who believe in God there is great satisfaction in the fact that Flew stresses, numerous times, that one of his guiding intellectual values has long been to follow the evidence wherever it leads. And “the evidence” has led him to this conclusion: “I now believe there is a God! So there!”
Alright, if you look in the book the “So there!” part isn’t really included in the text. But, in my imagination, it’s a nice little shot.
Flew provides his evidence for belief in God and makes a good argument.
It is also interesting and satisfying to theists that Flew credits recent scientific advances as a significant factor in his opinion regarding the existence of God. This is satisfying to theists because sometimes belief in God is portrayed as an entirely unwarranted; blind leap of faith; embraced by uneducated people—usually wearing no shoes or socks; with no rational basis whatsoever.
Since I’m a Christian, I found another line in the book to be quite pleasing. Flew says about Christianity, “If you’re wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat.”
I know, I know, atheists and non-Christians will find that to be ridiculous and aggravating. But, it’s still true that he wrote it. So there!
The book has two interesting appendices, one written by Roy Abraham Varghese, who is the co-writer of the book and one written by Bishop N.T. Wright. Bishop Wright’s essay on “The Self-Revelation of God in Human History” is outstanding.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
You say, “Well, he would probably write a book with this kind of sub-title: ‘How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.’”
You’re right. And that brings us to Antony Flew’s book and this review.
This book is a little bit autobiography and a good bit of philosophy with a little bit of the philosophy of science. (It’s everything I can do to resist some kind of reference to: it’s “a little bit country” and “a little bit rock and roll”.)
Flew provides a good bit of information about his background, and this helps the reader see the larger context of his life. I found this to be interesting.
To those of us who believe in God there is great satisfaction in the fact that Flew stresses, numerous times, that one of his guiding intellectual values has long been to follow the evidence wherever it leads. And “the evidence” has led him to this conclusion: “I now believe there is a God! So there!”
Alright, if you look in the book the “So there!” part isn’t really included in the text. But, in my imagination, it’s a nice little shot.
Flew provides his evidence for belief in God and makes a good argument.
It is also interesting and satisfying to theists that Flew credits recent scientific advances as a significant factor in his opinion regarding the existence of God. This is satisfying to theists because sometimes belief in God is portrayed as an entirely unwarranted; blind leap of faith; embraced by uneducated people—usually wearing no shoes or socks; with no rational basis whatsoever.
Since I’m a Christian, I found another line in the book to be quite pleasing. Flew says about Christianity, “If you’re wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat.”
I know, I know, atheists and non-Christians will find that to be ridiculous and aggravating. But, it’s still true that he wrote it. So there!
The book has two interesting appendices, one written by Roy Abraham Varghese, who is the co-writer of the book and one written by Bishop N.T. Wright. Bishop Wright’s essay on “The Self-Revelation of God in Human History” is outstanding.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
Monday, April 28, 2008
Review of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
What is Ben Stein’s beef? In his documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, you begin to realize from the opening shots at the Berlin Wall, that the main issue in the movie is freedom; freedom to pursue a line of thinking.
Anyone familiar with the literature of Intelligent Design knows that its proponents complain that it is misunderstood; that it’s opponents do not attempt to consider it’s arguments fairly and honestly; and that it is falsely mischaracterized in the media.
The false mischaracterization by the media is probably true since ID is already treated as a punch line on the late night talk shows and Saturday Night Live.
Of course, opponents of Intelligent Design will mock the complaints of ID proponents and assert that ID just, simply, does not qualify as real science. They will suggest that it is not a line of thinking that should be pursued because it is not worth pursuing.
That’s where the idea of freedom comes in. Stein asserts that the freedom to follow these thoughts should be allowed, even if you don’t like the implications of the thoughts. In human history there have always been those—and there always will be those—who are all the more motivated to investigate ideas when they have been told that they are not allowed to do so.
“Expelled” introduces audiences to some of the people in the academic world who made the mistake of merely throwing the idea of ID on the table for discussion and were punished for doing so. One of the more well known of these persons is Richard von Sternberg who is a biologist with two PhDs and was working, at the time, for the Smithsonian Institute. The irony is that von Sternberg, as an evolutionary biologist wasn’t even promoting Intelligent Design, but as the editor of a journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he merely allowed a peer reviewed paper by, credentialed scientist, Stephen Meyers to be published in the journal.
The article in question cast doubt on whether Darwinian evolution can truly explain the monumental question of genetic information—it’s a pretty interesting argument, by the way, for anyone who is willing to give it honest consideration—and goes on to suggest that, perhaps, some type of intelligence had to have played a role. Since intelligence can be strongly and persuasively argued to be a necessary requirement for the presence of “information” and since intelligence has even been put forth as an explanation by evolutionists in the form of the “panspermia hypothesis” it does not seem like the suggestion of intelligent causation should have been that upsetting of a thought. However, von Sternberg was fired for allowing such a frightening concept to be published in the journal.
Shouldn’t a scientist, be allowed to suggest a hypothesis, even what someone might consider to be an outlandish hypothesis? Sometimes it is the hypothesis that is least expected that turns out to be true. This represents the issue of freedom that Stein is raising with his film.
“Expelled” looks at ID’s fight in the academic world, in the media, and even in the courts. One of the salient points the movie makes is that science questions should not be determined in courtrooms. Of course, this will lead to a very robust discussion of “what constitutes science?” and “what are proper scientific pursuits?” and “who gets to decide what science is, then?” If you read philosophers of science, you discover that the answer to those questions are not as simple and obvious as you might expect. But it does seem reasonable to say that the answers to those questions should not be determined by a court of law.
A side note? Scientists, believe it or not, are not the best equipped to answer the question “what is science?” That is a philosophical question which most scientists are, actually, not trained to answer. It is a question that is studied and answered best by philosophers of science.
Although “Expelled” presents comments from scientists who oppose Intelligent Design, it is fair to say that it is defending one side of an argument. But since it is the side of the argument that is shut down by those who are supposed to be fair and impartial and free-thinking and open to debate, it’s the side of the argument that deserves to be heard.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL 60453
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Anyone familiar with the literature of Intelligent Design knows that its proponents complain that it is misunderstood; that it’s opponents do not attempt to consider it’s arguments fairly and honestly; and that it is falsely mischaracterized in the media.
The false mischaracterization by the media is probably true since ID is already treated as a punch line on the late night talk shows and Saturday Night Live.
Of course, opponents of Intelligent Design will mock the complaints of ID proponents and assert that ID just, simply, does not qualify as real science. They will suggest that it is not a line of thinking that should be pursued because it is not worth pursuing.
That’s where the idea of freedom comes in. Stein asserts that the freedom to follow these thoughts should be allowed, even if you don’t like the implications of the thoughts. In human history there have always been those—and there always will be those—who are all the more motivated to investigate ideas when they have been told that they are not allowed to do so.
“Expelled” introduces audiences to some of the people in the academic world who made the mistake of merely throwing the idea of ID on the table for discussion and were punished for doing so. One of the more well known of these persons is Richard von Sternberg who is a biologist with two PhDs and was working, at the time, for the Smithsonian Institute. The irony is that von Sternberg, as an evolutionary biologist wasn’t even promoting Intelligent Design, but as the editor of a journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he merely allowed a peer reviewed paper by, credentialed scientist, Stephen Meyers to be published in the journal.
The article in question cast doubt on whether Darwinian evolution can truly explain the monumental question of genetic information—it’s a pretty interesting argument, by the way, for anyone who is willing to give it honest consideration—and goes on to suggest that, perhaps, some type of intelligence had to have played a role. Since intelligence can be strongly and persuasively argued to be a necessary requirement for the presence of “information” and since intelligence has even been put forth as an explanation by evolutionists in the form of the “panspermia hypothesis” it does not seem like the suggestion of intelligent causation should have been that upsetting of a thought. However, von Sternberg was fired for allowing such a frightening concept to be published in the journal.
Shouldn’t a scientist, be allowed to suggest a hypothesis, even what someone might consider to be an outlandish hypothesis? Sometimes it is the hypothesis that is least expected that turns out to be true. This represents the issue of freedom that Stein is raising with his film.
“Expelled” looks at ID’s fight in the academic world, in the media, and even in the courts. One of the salient points the movie makes is that science questions should not be determined in courtrooms. Of course, this will lead to a very robust discussion of “what constitutes science?” and “what are proper scientific pursuits?” and “who gets to decide what science is, then?” If you read philosophers of science, you discover that the answer to those questions are not as simple and obvious as you might expect. But it does seem reasonable to say that the answers to those questions should not be determined by a court of law.
A side note? Scientists, believe it or not, are not the best equipped to answer the question “what is science?” That is a philosophical question which most scientists are, actually, not trained to answer. It is a question that is studied and answered best by philosophers of science.
Although “Expelled” presents comments from scientists who oppose Intelligent Design, it is fair to say that it is defending one side of an argument. But since it is the side of the argument that is shut down by those who are supposed to be fair and impartial and free-thinking and open to debate, it’s the side of the argument that deserves to be heard.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL 60453
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)