Saturday, September 28, 2013

No, science actually hasn't shown a lack of guidance - more conversation logs

I was waiting for the latest conversation to be completely over before posting it, but the whole thing is dragging on now in a way that makes me feel as if someone is trying to run out the clock in a conversation that has no actual time limit. So, here you have it.

Not a conversation about social conservatism or LGBT issues for a change. Instead this is a comments section modest derail on Feser's blog, where I argue against the (popular, even among some Christians) claim that science has shown that various processes - particularly but not exclusively evolution - are 'unguided'. This is one of my favorite topics to engage, partly because it really seems as if it's one that few people actually discuss - but it's one of the topics that most undercuts modern intellectual anti-theism, while at the same time being pretty easy to communicate and grasp.

Intellectual highlights are 'science is utterly silent on the presence or lack of design and/or guidance in its theories, whether fundamental physical theory or evolutionary theory or otherwise, at least insofar as God/gods/powerful agents are concerned', some discussion about the scope of science and Intelligent Design, and more. Argument gimmick highlights include the usual Cult of Gnu testiness courtesy of one anon, and someone by the name of Urban Jean making a grand show of what at first I thought was feigned non-comprehension, but in retrospect may actually be academia-induced damage.

I also thought the Noah's Ark line was funny, I gotta say. Tough crowd.


Syllabus said...

It always seems strange to me that people try to use science, which in principle leaves the question of final causes (to use the Aristotelian language), to disprove the existence of final causes.

Crude said...

I think it's even worse than that. It not only does nothing against final causes, it does nothing against Zeus or "personal" gods as well.