Absolute proof of intelligently designed life!

Posted: June 11, 2007 in Intelligent Design, Theo/Philo

 

I’m reading ‘rollback’ by Robert Sawyer, a sci-fi writer,of whom I cannot recommend enough.

Along with Clarke and Scott Card ,Sawyer has the knack of making the reader think, while simultaneously providing a world to inhabit.

I read this passage in Rollback (page 172):’”…Well, I,m an evolutionist-you know that-but I don’t agree with the testimony that the scientists on the evolution side keep giving. They keep saying that science cannot admit supernatural causes, by which they mean that any scientific explanation has to, by definition, be limited to causes intrinsic to this universe.”

What’s wrong with that?”

Everything is wrong with it” she said. “That definition of science prevents us from ever concluding that we are the product of the work of other scientists, working in a reality above this one. It leaves us with the cockeyed mess of having a scientific worldview that on one hand freely acknowledges that we will eventually be able to stimulate reality perfectly, or maybe even be able to create daughter universes, but on the other hand is constrained against ever allowing ourselves that we ourselves might exist in one of those things.”…”Technology gives species the power to prevent life, to create life , to take life on scales small and large; technology ultimately gives the power to be what we call Gods, and, even if our definition of science is blind to it, it raises the possibility that what we are is the result of the work of some other being that would, by virtue of having created us, also deserve that term God.”This a pertinent question,as we become more technologically advanced ,it is not inconceivable that we will be in a situation to create entities that are correctly described as intelligently designed.

For instance Craig Venter has been in the news recently ,trying to get a patent on synthetic life dubbed ‘designer microbes’ his group are working on, designed to produce biofuels, see here.

I remember Schaeffer saying something like; our morality cannot keep pace with our technology,likewise the results of our methodology it seems cannot be consistent with the philosophy that under girds it, that of methodological naturalism.

If we can accept Craig Venter as creator in principle; what then stops us accepting our own existence as attributable to design by another designer?

Yes, we can see Venter, but we can also perceive design, as Dawkins apparently admits, in nature .

Defined in Wiki as:

“the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it … science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success (although science does have metaphysical implications), but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is.”The assumption of methodological naturalism ,is itself without foundation, as far as I can see.

There is the notion that admitting non naturalistic causes and effects will be disastrous and a show stopper for science, but considering that the origin of science was due in part to a Christian consensus, it seems this show stopper is little more than spin.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s