In the News

On Stabroek News, a letter to the editor denies that the tools of science can detect intelligent agency.

There are so many problems with this letter it is difficult to know where to begin.

Given the materialists definition of science, that only naturalistic causes can be entertained, then ID is not science. But, given that restrictive definition, science can never determine whether someone died of natural causes or at the hands of intelligent agent causation (a murderer). Science cannot determine whether an object found in the desert in Utah was sculpted by natural forces, or was crafted by a member of the Fremont people. Science cannot determine whether signals from outer space were generated by a pulsar, or by an extraterrestrial intelligent civilization. According to the materialists, material intelligent agency can be detected by science. But, when extra-material intelligent agents are suggested...well...that's going too far...and that's not science. You can't have it both ways.

Once again, the important question is, "Are we attempting to find the Truth about Reality, or are we trying to find the best naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon, even if that naturalistic explanation is counterintuitive, or just plain silly?"

Richard Lewontin, a brilliant Harvard professor and materialist, is surprisingly honesty when he says:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises...because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

We know, by their own admission, in times when their thoughts are unguarded, what the materialists are all about...they are close-minded and dogmatic.

Two other comments on the letter. To provide ad homenim attacks is not an argument against ID. Also, to attack an idea such as ID by questioning the MOTIVES of its adherents or proponents is disingenuous. It can just as easily be said that Darwinists believe in evolution because they are motivated by there desire to not accept the supernatural. The arguments for and against a worldview should rest on the soundness of the arguments and evidence, not on the motivation of the investigators.

To put it bluntly, M. Xiu Quan-Balgobind-Hackett is intelligent, but a sloppy thinker. And there are millions more.

The letter to the editor...