In the opinion of myself and many others that is...
_________________
The logos is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to reality but by Him.

In the opinion of myself and many others that is...
_________________
The logos is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to reality but by Him.

The Discovery Institute, which works so incredibly hard to make their stuff appear to be entirely scientific and entirely removed from any sort of religious foundation must love it when people like you say stuff like this.

If the basis for your belief in ID is religion, then why does it matter what science says?

If you want to be scientific, then your religious beliefs are completely irrelevant.

You can't have it both ways.

So science is faith. And it is faith in logic. And that is a very interesting observation since now we must remember that, any logical equation or test requires at least two entities (or witnesses). The coherence of at least two entities becomes the third element in the equation. Assuming the entities involved achieve coherence, then theory + evidence = knowledge. All scientific observation is therefore triune in principle. There is no escaping this reality. No claim is scientifically valid without the testimony of at least two witnesses. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. All of those qualities assume the law of contradiction to be valid and are dependant upon its application.

No test for authoritative revelation can be achieved with less than a triune equation. Logic is systemic by its very nature. Although our knowledge based upon this faith in logic is not comprehensive, it is our only light. We simply have no other authority for any form of objective revelation. That is not an ecclesiastical proclamation, but is the profound quality of self evident and logical propositions.


Methodological naturalism is neither logical (philosophically), nor scientific (empirically) when exalted to the status of an absolute. The only absolute in science is logic and coherence. Logical coherence (non-contradiction) must be assumed to be reality (God), in the triune sense extrapolated to us by the apostle John. But before we analyze John’s witness, let’s bear in mind that the Greeks had several ‘terms’ for the English term ‘Word’. The one that John used is ‘logos’ which assumes ‘reason’ as part of its meaning. The term Logos is also the etymological root of the English term ‘logic’.[1]



John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (logos), was with God, and the Word (logos), was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men…14 The Word (logos) became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.



So science is indeed a triune and monotheistic affair. Paul Davies understands the history of scientific thought very well. Even so, it appears that the connection is far more implicit than he, or many of us bargained for. Logic has always been so, long before we discovered its power and recognized its whole nature. Logic is our only authority. Without its coherent order, all things would become unintelligible philosophically, and fall to pieces materially.

My argument cannot be presented, if the Bible is not allowed as evidence.

The argument below is only a clip of the full 2 part article available at my homepage http://rob-lock.livejournal.com/ .

Bingo. You're defining "intelligent design" as mythos, not science.

It seems to me absurd that we should view ourselves without respect for our ability to reason and moralize. The only ‘reason’ (ironically) to play down our moral role in the cosmic scheme of things, is to avoid the reality of our fallen nature, which demands of us far more than we feel qualified to achieve.

It is this failing, to live as we seem bent on demanding of our neighbor that is the real rub. We do not want to be brought low by a sense of absolute moral duty. Therefore, to remain proud, we must abolish that bar (and make its law our enemy), and reduce humanity to nothing but a fecal habitat for our supposed equals (so says Neil deGrasse Tyson).

In this way, the real hubris is in the denial of the standard which makes us human, so as to live content with ourselves as we are; a beast.

Mankind cannot attain the purity and essential quality of the moral law by his own efforts. To do so would require the help of one who can, and genuine humilty in the bending of man’s knee to God. So the alternative, disguised as humility, is really mankind being himself apart from his creator and being unabashedly proud of what his hands have achieved.

So, as if there were any ambiguity as to my position, I contend that purpose in the universe is clearly a position of humility under which mankind must conform to that which has been revealed to him through his conscience, by God.

I will simply point out that your "clip" is mostly nonsense.

Modern science was born in Western Europe, from within the almost exclusively Christian Universitites.

The whole application of scientific discovery is rooted in the idea that the universe was intelligibel to humanity because man was made in God's image.

Modern science was born in Western Europe, from within the almost exclusively Christian Universitites.

The whole application of scientific discovery is rooted in the idea that the universe was intelligibel to humanity because man was made in God's image.

No it isn't. It's rooted in the idea that the universe is intelligible to humanity via objective observation, not via fallible interpretations of scripture.

To assert that the universe has a purpose implies the universe has intent. And intent implies a desired outcome. But who would do the desiring? And what would a desired outcome be? That carbon-based life is inevitable? Or that sentient primates are life’s neurological pinnacle? Are answers to these questions even possible without expressing a profound bias of human sentiment? Of course humans were not around to ask these questions for 99.9999% of cosmic history…

How about human life itself? If you are religious, you might declare that the purpose of life is to serve God. But if you’re one of the 100 billion bacteria living and working in a single centimeter of our lower intestine (rivaling, by the way, the total number of humans who have ever been born) you would give an entirely different answer. You might instead say that the purpose of human life is to provide you with a dark, but idyllic, anaerobic habitat of fecal matter.

c.1300, "institution of higher learning," also "body of persons constituting a university," from Anglo-Fr. université, O.Fr. universitei (13c.), from M.L. universitatem (nom. universitas), in L.L. "corporation, society," from L., "the whole, aggregate," from universus "whole, entire" (see universe). In the academic sense, a shortening of universitas magistrorum et scholarium "community of masters and scholars;" superseded studium as the word for this.

Then what do you make of Chinese science.

Some of your contemporaries would disagree that human objectivity and reason is anything but human bias.

Entymology of the word university.

Main Entry: ho·ly
Pronunciation: \ˈhō-lē\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): ho·li·er; ho·li·est
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hālig; akin to Old English hāl whole — more at whole

Too many negatives in that sentence to make any sense of it.

Are you and/or Neil deGrasse Tyson suggesting that we shouldn't use objectivity and reason? As I said before, you seem to be defining intelligent design as unscientific.

Reason is truely objective, assuming that all of our diverse proclivities are brought under the unifying power of logical coherence.