Scientism’s Nemeses
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“A timely and well needed podcast that will foster dialogue and knowledge of what a large portion of the American public believe. I have many political, philosophical and scientific “blurbs” on my I-Pod, and this new addition to the scientific/philosophical debate by the many fine doctorate holding professors and research scientists at the Discovery Institute will do nothing but add clarity to an issue that demands such. Many of the issues found herein are merely current ruminations of a chain of thought going all the way back to Plato and others. This is rarely addressed by the critics. For instance:
Recently, in the now well-known but oft misinterpreted Dover decision, Judge Jones said that Intelligent Design is “an extension of the fundamentalists’ view that one must… accept the literal interpretation of Genesis.” What he and many others fail to account for is that over three-hundred years prior to Christ ~ and hence three hundred years before “fundamentalism” ~ Plato said: “Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. But this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some First Mover.”
A half century before Jesus’ birth Cicero confirmed Intelligent Design’s pre-fundamentalism. Pointing to the logical and philosophically sound scientific concept that chance cannot create anything: “Is it not a wonder that anyone can bring himself to believe that a number of solid and separate particles by their chance collisions and moved only by the force of their own weight could bring into being so marvelous and beautiful a world? If anybody thinks that this is possible, I do not see why he should not think that if an infinite number of examples of the twenty-one letters of the alphabet, made of gold or what you will, were shaken together and poured out on the ground it would be possible for them to fall so as to spell out, say, the whole text of the Annals of Ennius. In fact I doubt whether chance would permit them to spell out a single verse!”
Even here in these reviews we are seeing the reverberations and writhing of the critic[s] to the above non-religious linear thinking offered by the Discovery Institute. These anfractuous mischaracterizations from the philosophical naturalist in regards to the Intelligent Design position should be seen merely as a symptom of a deeper disorder, that is: the naturalist is clearly discovering the vacuous nature of his or her arguments which is causing them face the abrupt understanding that an impending death knell has been rung for their Sacred Dogma, e.g., “scientism.”
What the naturalist wishes not to happen is for the student to learn the story of evolution unabashedly. They wish only to apply the filters of the “truths” of neo-Darwinian thinking. Heretics like Gould, Eldredge, Dembski, Behe, Weldon and others, are not to be tolerated; or if tolerated, given a quick three-sentence overview that does nothing to foster healthy debate, critical thinking, or a deeper understanding of science.
The naturalist must suppress their natural (pun intended) inclination to see “design,” having to “constantly keep in mind that what they see [is] not designed” (Dawkins). Keeping the above in mind has been made more difficult since the appearance of the Discovery Institute. When Plato stated that “atheism is a disease of the soul, before it becomes an error of the understanding,” he was pointing out the fact that people, who, even before the evidence is viewed presuppose that a First-Mover is impossible, are people who limit comprehension. And it is the proper comprehending of the facts that The Discovery Institute’s podcast will surely foster.”
SeanG via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
05/17/06
More reviews of Intelligent Design the Future
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“This is not science and belongs over in religion. Intelligent Design is not science, this has been through the courts and no further debate is called for.”
Kill_The_CRTC via Apple Podcasts ·
Canada ·
01/27/09
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“It's interesting how there can be a whole podcast devoted to this topic when the entire scientific community debunked the ID years ago.
Also, I'll probably kill myself if I hear them say "quote blah blah blah unquote" one more goddamn time.”Read full review »
DengAi via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
03/19/09
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“I have just listened to a total load of drivel from someone called Robert Crowther who appears to know nothing whatsoever about science or the scientific method. This podcast belongs with the other woo such as astrology, numerology and homeopathy not with real science. Does this guy really...”Read full review »
ros comain via Apple Podcasts ·
Australia ·
06/17/08
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
Listen now
Links
Genres
Artwork or description wrong?
Request an update »
Updates may take a few minutes.
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
