UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 13 to Talk Back 86
I am not advocating belief in anything other than 'fully systematized understanding'.

by: Rob Lockett

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This exchange of views has been continued.

Hi Will, you raise some honest questions there...

I ask you to read the new version in order to see that I am not advocating belief in anything other than 'fully systematized understanding'.

That is what science already is. I am only trying to make it more so...

Taste and see: http://rob-lock.livejournal.com/

Here is an example of the application of the principles involved:

What I said is, that methodological naturalism assumes a preconceived conclusion (that all scientific explanations must be material) before the process even begins.

It works like this with regard to origins: Material processes exist. Therefore all explanations and causes are material.

That is called inductive reasoning. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Now here is the rub… There is no material explanation for the origin of DNA or matter. It is simply asserted that there is one by those with a material theistic philosophy. It is an anti-theistic bias that has no scientific merit by way of empirical evidence or logical authority.

On the other hand, there is empirical evidence for intelligent causation, namely the organizational and creative capacity of intelligent human beings. So it is therefore a more logical explanation with the limited evidence we currently have.

Matter cannot produce information. Matter is simply the material medium by which intelligence produce patterns that are written.

Seti researchers who are supported by a large body of scientists, listen for such patterns to prove the existence of intelligence.

The addition of information causes no difference in mass to the material medium. A CD that is full of 70MB of information is no different in terms of mass than one that is empty. The only difference is the pattern that intelligence inscribes in the medium. Without intelligence, there is no information.

There are lots of material emissions coming from space, but they contain no intelligent information as far as we can tell thus far. There is no demonstrable natural process by which information is produced. And that’s why Seti Researchers know that such a pattern would signify intelligence.

Natural process do not produce information, they produce random and repetative patterns, and actually serve to break down complex systems into simpler ones.

So when it comes to origins we have a choice between two theories. One provides no explanation for the origin of biological information. The other offers a logical possibility sustained by actual empirical evidence.

Which one has the logical and scientific evidence on its side? Which of the two based upon your own admission of what science is, is the most coherent scientifically?

Which one is the inference to the best explanation?

Which theory is scientific, and which one takes faith?