Chemical vs dating carbon

09-Dec-2016 16:17

nature for fear that the only alternative to this position, intelligent design, might bring back the darkness of superstition.However, many of these same scientists hope to find evidence, even historically based evidence, of intelligent life in the universe beyond our own world.It all boils down to what scientists define as "natural" verses "supernatural".The funny thing is, scientists do theorize the involvement of intelligent minds all the time when it comes to forensic investigations or searches for extraterrestrial intelligence - since these intelligences would be "natural". Upon what basis are all considerations of the workings of an intelligent mind excluded, without any consideration whatsoever, when it comes to determining the origin and diversity of life on this planet?Certainly one might conclude that the facts are overwhelmingly in favor of one position over another after extensive testing is done, but the scientific method necessitates no prior commitment to outcome of an intelligent vs.a non-intelligent cause, even an ultimate cause, adherence to material [i.e., mindless or randomly acting] causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated." Many go on to explain that "materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."And there it is - - Ultimately it is all about the concept of "God".

Why then do scientists assume, from the very start, that the ultimate cause of the phenomenon of "life" was, without question, non-deliberate?Why then does it seem like many scientists defend their ideas of naturalism and the theory of evolution as if their lives and very souls depended on it?The dedication of the scientific community at large to these ideas is generally no less dogmatic and passionate than the religious fervor of the most hardened sectarian fundamentalist.In this case I could quite rationally hypothesize either a mindless non-deliberate cause (i.e., a tree limb, strong gust of wind, hail from a storm, etc) or a deliberate intelligent cause (i.e., a robber, a kid with rock or pellet gun, etc).However, if I were to walk by that same house later in the day and find that this same window had been repaired, how easy would it be for me to hypothesize a random mindless process as a cause?

Why then do scientists assume, from the very start, that the ultimate cause of the phenomenon of "life" was, without question, non-deliberate?Why then does it seem like many scientists defend their ideas of naturalism and the theory of evolution as if their lives and very souls depended on it?The dedication of the scientific community at large to these ideas is generally no less dogmatic and passionate than the religious fervor of the most hardened sectarian fundamentalist.In this case I could quite rationally hypothesize either a mindless non-deliberate cause (i.e., a tree limb, strong gust of wind, hail from a storm, etc) or a deliberate intelligent cause (i.e., a robber, a kid with rock or pellet gun, etc).However, if I were to walk by that same house later in the day and find that this same window had been repaired, how easy would it be for me to hypothesize a random mindless process as a cause? The farce continues until a child exclaims, "The Emperor has no clothes!