Materialists seem unable to decide whether human beings belong within the category called nature or not. The theory of evolution claims man is just one more product of nature, but the 'naturalistic' model of science demands that man is seen as separate from nature.
Quotes and comments;
1. Eugenie Scott put it this way: “modern science operates under a rule of methodological materialism that limits it to attempting to explain the natural world using natural causes.”
- Well; guess what Ms. Scott; intelligence is a natural cause. (Unless you think human beings aren't 'natural' products or products of nature.) By excluding intelligence she's excluding human beings (at the very least) from causation. Can you really explain the world we live in without reference to human beings :=)
- To limit causation to the material realm (excluding intelligence) is a case of theory inflation. Inevitably (in the history of any theory) people will try to push that particular theory too far; claiming it can explain far more than it can. (e.g. Freudianism, Marxism) The more we discover about the universe the more clear it becomes that there are limits to the 'naturalistic' (i.e. materialistic) explanation. It works fine for describing observable phenomenon; but it breaks down completely when trying to account for Origins. With new instrumentation we've been able to uncover biological phenomenon of such complexity they demand an intelligent explanation.
Summary;
If the laws of physics can't account for complex, specified information (CSI) then what's left? The only explanation I can see is some form of intelligence. (Mind trumps matter as paper covers rock.)
Notes;
1. Cosmic Accidents Are Not Scientific Explanations - Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/03/2010
2. 'Natural causes include natural laws, predictable patterns, probability, or combinations of these. Pure accidents, by contrast, contain no explanatory power.' - above
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
