Do you think the scientist who says this is mixed up in Intelligent Design science?

Question

We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged an obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysteriou force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one not two separate things.

Answer 1

That sounds like the man himself Albert Einstein who wasn't at all mixed up in Intelligent Design - he would have seen it for the unscientific fraud it is.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, like the Theory of General Relativity, is based on observable, empirical evidence, and is subject to the principles of reasoning. It is falsifiable, and makes testable predictions. Therefore it is based on the scientific method (and is supported by a truly enormous pile of evidence). It is science.

In contrast, I.D. is not falsifiable - all possible evidence that can be found supports the 'Theory'. Nor does it make testable predictions. Further it does not follow principles of reasoning, eg. using argument from incredulity ("Irreducible complexity"). It is not Science.

It is the architects behind I.D. who try to paint science as atheism - look up the "Wedge Strategy" on wikipedia. Many many scientists are religious.

Answer 2

You didn't name the scientist. But yes, there is an element of ID there.

What amazes me is that most people think that science and religion/ID are exclusive. That is to say, a scientist , BY DEFINITION, cannot believe in God. Or a Christian CANNOT accept science. Actually, most EVOLUTIONISTS propose these ideas.

What should be made clear is that Christians oppose PHILOSOPHICAL science since it cannot be substantiated by the scientific method!!! This is especially true in the search of origins. The evolutionist will quickly propose that Creationists base their beliefs on origins mainly on philosophy but stringently objects when the same charge is made against them in relation to their BELIEF about evolution.

Macroevolution has never been proven and neither can it be proven. How then is it scientific? It rests on the same foundation as ID : philosophy. Is this a case of the pot calling kettle black? Who exactly is 'brainwashed'?

Incidentally, why do some major universities have a Para-psychology Department?

Answer 3

Alright ~ so you are saying we are children in a big miraculous world not sure which is right, right? But when u were a child, u believed what your parents told u right? Jesus said that we have to humble ourselves as children to be able to enter heaven. We are to see things as a child, innocently. You are right, as we get older we start to question laws, and thus is there really a God? Someone in charge of all this? I believe God gave us only part of our brains to use for a reason, we cannot ACCEPT the divinity that is God, Jesus & the Holy Spirit. If u think about it, we know about as much of our brains as we do space, the vastness & mysteries just beyond our grasp to comprehend. For even tho there is a lot we know, there is more we cannot know. I also believe God gave us thinkers (philosophers) for a reason, same w/ psychics, only a select few are capable of supernatural gifts & understandings. We are all part of a divine puzzle, not a doubt in my mind, God bless.:o]

Answer 4

Sure. Yea. Of course. The child dimly suspects mysterious order in the arrangement of the book... LOL
This "child" not so dimly suspects that I'm being 'led down the garden path' here.

Answer 5

Pantheism means:(Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God'.
knowing this I'd have to say maybe, since he seems to agree with ID in the first half. but when mentioning Spinoza's pantheism he somewhat contradicts himself.

Answer 6

I don't know. Without more of a quote and its context I am not even sure if this was written by a scientist. If it was a scientist was he even speaking in his field of knowledge. Some parts make me suspect that it might be creationist but there is no way to tell from this, the Spinoza reference would be unusual for a creationist to make.

Answer 7

Could be, but could also just be a very religious person who is also enamoured with science.

Einstein was a believer, as are many scientists. That doesn't mean that they are trying to stuff God down everyone's throats. One can believe and still be objective, though that takes a certain discipline. It's not impossible though.

--Dee

Answer 8

It's very interesting. It doesn't make it true. But it resembles my thought on God, rather than the Judeo Christian god. I don't believe i destiny and his views are a dichotomy on this issue. First he says we have to accept destiny, then he says that nature does not work with an end in view. I can't see how both can be true. Thanks for the insight and info.

Answer 9

First: ID is not science. It is a religious assertion with no basis in fact.

The universe is easily explained by natural processes. Arguments from incredulity and ignorance notwithstanding.

Answer 10

i was once told to think of the world as a beatifully crocheted pattern. God sees His beatiful pattern from above. We see it from underneathe where ends of strings and stitchings look chaotic and random.