Thursday, July 13, 2006

Perspective: Faith and Science

As an active alumni of the University of Wisconsin Madison, I receive the On Wisconsin Magazine.

I recently read, Putting Faith in Science, which is appropriately cited here. (It would be nice if the university made those articles available cause some are of much interest)

It commented on "Intelligent Design"

On an interesting note, my journey draws me back to Plato and his natural "demiurge"

This line of thinking is for another time, and will bring some good linkages for the mind to ponder.


to quote the article " The basic argument of intelligent design proposes that the complexity of biological life is itself evidence of a designer, a higher being at work"

Now there is something for the nogin, a great Architect.

The article goes on to speak of the challenges of bringing God and Science to live harmoniously together. To me, what's the tough challenge???

Here is a valid hypothesis- I seek to prove that there is a great intelligent designer, or Architect that created the universe and all within.

So from a scientific perspective the next steps are to outline the methodology to be used to prove, or disprove this hypothesis.... simple right ;-)

Over time I shall aspire to distribute scientific experiments that can be done to build humanity up to the point where the grandiose experiment I outlined above is conceivable.

I was encouraged to hear that there is a national science society that has a program that helps with the relationship between science and religion. I shall have to keep up on the AAAS.

Anyhoot, the Intelligent Design concept struck a chord with me.

Let's see where this leads...

Technorati Tags
, , , ,

1 comment:

Theo said...

There is no conflict between science and religion if one understands both (especially their limitations) properly. Intelligent design is not a scientific proposal; it is a metaphysical one. As it is advocated, WRT biological complexity, it is literally "god of the gaps"; it isn’t even a good metaphysical claim. Further to this, there actually aren’t the kinds of gaps in evolution that require an alternative explanation - IDers just claim there are. And even if there were, saying "god did it" is a non-explanation.

Your "great Architect" is a metaphysical concept and is not in conflict with science unless you try to "prove" it. Choosing to interpret well-established scientific laws, eg Newton's Law of Gravitation, as evidence for a Great Architect is fine; but it isn't a scientific claim. Most mainstream religions accept this view - eg Catholicism.

FYI - Here's more I've written about ID and "science v religion".