tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post8457254826101593997..comments2021-09-16T12:52:38.573-07:00Comments on I is for Ignostic: Stephen Meyer's Intelligent Design Argument Refuted--Part 2A is for Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06707383740611116793noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-39091041806267417362013-06-21T12:42:51.359-07:002013-06-21T12:42:51.359-07:00I reject both premises as false as neither are nec...I reject both premises as false as neither are necessary, hence Stephen C. Meyer's ID theory as an explanation of origins doesn't fail.<br /><br />There is no scientific need to describe more than what is essential to explain a particular phenomenon, even though it would be interesting to know more details (what this intelligence IS, what it wears, etc..), but such additional facts are not strictly required to validate the concept that intelligence/agency is a possible cause. The science itself of course shouldn't STOP regardless(see below)<br /><br />I reject the notion that a theory leading to a supposed infinite regress = FALSEHOOD. The logic simply doesn't follow that something is false because more data is not forthcoming at the moment. Such reasoning would invalidate many of the sciences that study past phenomenon. If we are seeing signs of intelligence in the biological facts we do currently have, then that's enough to conclude it as a best explanation (as per current scientific knowledge, but the testing, the theorizing, the experiments, etc. aka: THE SCIENCE in operation doesn't STOP with a God of the gaps mentality, and that is KEY)<br /><br />We should still INFER and conclude one theory makes more sense vs. another given the available data. One thing a person should NOT do however is refuse to allow intelligence as an explanation (in order to conform to some materialist bias) because ultimately the TRUTH (facts) of the matter is what IS important. <br /><br />If a person rejects intelligence primo de facto as a cause, it certainly should not be done solely because a person WANTS to A.) Avoid an infinite regress or because B.) They don’t have the full rap-sheet on the designer in question...in the first objection, how do you propose to resolve such an infinite regress as the multiple-world hypothesis which is the leading materialist explanation of the origin of the universe? You can't but that's okay, and that door swings both ways.<br /><br />Let's face it, no matter what we do, concerning discussions of 'origins', it ALWAYS comes back around to either an infinite regress or an "unmoved mover" (something not suspect to an infinite regress) as a starting foundation, and so it seems clear to me that this is a philosophical (not a scientific) argument at its root; which is whether mind or matter is primary, and then we go on arguing what else we accept/reject from that bedrock, so I say to all: Look at all the evidence and take your pick.<br /><br />Thank you for the interesting article.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com