Saturday, May 26, 2018
 

The Philosophy of Intelligent Design, part 3

Why it is Unreasonable to Exclude ID from Institutional Science

  • 22 December 2015
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 2796
  • 0 Comments
Regardless of scientist's personal views on the subject, public institutions highly favor evolution in the name of pure science, and disfavor Intelligent Design due to its religious implications.  If it is any sort of rule it is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. But is it a fair and a reasonable one? And is it truly scientific?  With support from philosopher Thomas Nagel, I argue that it is not.  The prevailing institutional science of origins has unfairly “ruled out” a priori all possible causes that are not strictly naturalistic (i.e. mindless and purposeless) as pseudo-science.  Not even false per se, just disallowed.  This discussion will give special attention to the notion of irreducible complexity that Dr. Michael Behe develops in his book, "Darwin's Black Box".

The Philosophy of Intelligent Design, part 2

Why it is Unreasonable to Exclude ID from Institutional Science

  • 22 December 2015
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 2690
  • 0 Comments

Regardless of scientist's personal views on the subject, public institutions highly favor evolution in the name of pure science, and disfavor Intelligent Design due to its religious implications.  If it is any sort of rule it is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. But is it a fair and a reasonable one? And is it truly scientific?  With support from philosopher Thomas Nagel, I argue that it is not.  The prevailing institutional science of origins has unfairly “ruled out” a priori all possible causes that are not strictly naturalistic (i.e. mindless and purposeless) as pseudo-science.  Not even false per se, just disallowed.  This discussion will give special attention to the notion of irreducible complexity that Dr. Michael Behe develops in his book, "Darwin's Black Box".

The Philosophy of Intelligent Design, part 1

Why it is Unreasonable to Exclude ID from Institutional Science

  • 22 December 2015
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 2926
  • 0 Comments
Regardless of scientist's personal views on the subject, public institutions highly favor evolution in the name of pure science, and disfavor Intelligent Design due to its religious implications.  If it is any sort of rule it is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. But is it a fair and a reasonable one? And is it truly scientific?  With support from philosopher Thomas Nagel, I argue that it is not.  The prevailing institutional science of origins has unfairly “ruled out” a priori all possible causes that are not strictly naturalistic (i.e. mindless and purposeless) as pseudo-science.  Not even false per se, just disallowed.  This discussion will give special attention to the notion of irreducible complexity that Dr. Michael Behe develops in his book, "Darwin's Black Box".
RSS
Home   |   Tao & Tawheed   |   Events   |   Account
Copyright 2018 by Advance Ministries