The View From 1776

PBS: Inadvertent Truth From Corrupt Mouths

PBS’s Nova series program, “Isaac Newton’s Dark Secret,” makes the case for Intelligent Design , which doubtless was not intended.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/16 at 01:56 AM
  1. I don't see the connection you're trying to make. If someone goes about trying to prove intelligent design and documents themselves well, they too may inadvertenly discover something or maybe even find what they are looking for. Also, just because some science is religiously inspired, or produced by religous people, no scientist would care much as long as the work is reproducible and well documented (Mendell anyone?)

    Just because the mass of supporting evidence favors evolution does not mean that scientists have rejected god. His comment about how Newton all matter obeyed the same laws is dated if you look farther into physics. Everything in science is and will be revised at some point taking into account new evidence. The theory of evolution has not stayed stable since Darwin's time, it has changed significantly. (if only Mendell's work got to Darwin before his death, Darwin's original theory would have been greatly improved)

    Finally, just because things are similar does not mean that they must be "intelligently designed". Could it possibly be that if things are governed similarly, the results may be similar? Infact, we show many signs that if we were designed, were designed badly. Look at your appendix, look at your tailbone, and look at the sinus system, and you may see what I'm saying.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/16  at  04:16 AM
  2. So if Euclid were an athiest, his advancements of mathematics, as universal as Newton's physics and still used today, would disprove intelligent design? Or perhaps by using wheels in our lives today we are tacitly proving the philosophies of our ancestors who first used them.

    More than science, schools need to redouble efforts on teaching logic.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/16  at  09:32 AM
  3. There is no "mass of supporting evidence" favoring evolution. The best chance evolution has of having any element of reality is in Intelligent Design, itself.

    In the meantime, it partakes purely of humanistic theology/philosophy: man-made 'hoped-for' delimited opinion.

    Add: Human logic is no better than its criteria. Lacking Transcendent Criteria, man-made egocentric-birthed criteria 'conveniently' goes no higher than his eye-brows!
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  11/16  at  10:01 AM
  4. I do not understand how intelligent design is the only chance for evolution. if you are talking about the origin of life (some people get confused) evolution has nothing to do with that. (see:Abiogenesis) The fossil record is great evidence to evolution. In addition, we have observed evolution to an extent with the Galapogos finches and other isolated species. Vestigial organs and such for species also give some support to evolution.
    Science hopes for nothing, if maybe someone published a paper or two in a reputable journal documenting evidence for intelligent design the science community would listen. Thus far however the intelligent design advocates have not followed the scientific communities rules and instead have waged a PR/political battle. Instead of telling me that evolution has no supporting evidence, tell me what supporting evidence intelligent design has.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/16  at  12:30 PM
  5. The supporting evidence "they" have for intelligent design is that "they" say it is so. And that is good enough for them. It's as though believers are clasping their hands to their ears and chanting la la la la la la as they skip along. Their logic has a "Pee Wee Herman" sensibility about it.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/16  at  03:04 PM
  6. 1. newton was a brilliant physicist
    2. newton believed in intelligent design
    3. therefore intelligent design is true.

    boy, with logic like that, i'm sure the evolutionists will simply
    roll over and admit defeat.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/16  at  06:08 PM
  7. The sand-box patty-cake group is happy with Chance as a reasonable cause of universal complexity; Right?

    Keep it simple...explain to yourself the First Cause: I might like to listen in. Never mind. Boring.

    "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

    Lotsaluck
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  11/16  at  09:08 PM
  8. The American philosopher Charles Saunders Peirce, who incidently founded Pragmatism as a systematic application of Biblical doctrine to the problem of acquiring and verifying knowledge, cited as proof of the reality of God, the fact that scientists found it profitable to engage in scientific activity. The fundamental role played by the defense of historic Christianity in the preservation and subsequent development of Greek mathematics into modern experimental science has been obscured by the fact that modern treatments of the history of science are based on the work of Auguste Compte (1798-1857), who did not allow facts to interfere with his ideas.

    Our distain of alchemy is a direct result of the Christian world-view of Roger Bacon (c. 1214-1294), Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655), Robert Boyle (1627-1691), and John Dalton (1766-1844). The plausibility of alchemy arose from the pantheism of Aristotle, whereby all material objects were but different forms of the same substance. Consequently if an object could be made to look like gold, then for all practical purposes it was in fact gold. Gassendi combined Democritus's atomic theory with Bacon's criticism of panetheism that "horses and asses are not different forms of matter but of different matter altogether" to conclude that different substances were made up of different atoms. Dalton was able to determine the weights of Gassendi's atoms, thus allowing quantitative predictions.

    Mr. Brewton's critics are forgetting that the whole point of experimental science is that successful predictions confirm the original hypothesis, even if it is an application of basic Christian doctrine, as is most of modern science.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/04  at  05:58 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.