Harry’s food for thought on “Materialistic Scientism Is Fundamentally Irrational”

This is the first of two food for thought pieces coming from comments in the scientism thread:

Harry, 7: >>Materialistic Scientism Is Fundamentally Irrational

In order to demonstrate how a given instance of functional complexity
might come about mindlessly and accidentally, one must first know how
to create it intentionally. Then, one can at least begin to explain how
the required steps in the functional-complexity-assembling procedure
might, over enough time, happen mindlessly, accidentally, and in the
necessary sequence, through some combination of chance and the laws of
physics.

So, until science knows how to create life – an instance of massive
functional complexity – from scratch, they are in no position to insist
that it came about mindlessly and accidentally over any amount of time. How can they just assume that it did? They can’t. Not rationally.

It seems that significant functional complexity, certainly when its
construction is directed by massive quantities of extremely precise
digital information like that found in life’s DNA, is simply beyond the
capacity of time, chance and the laws of physics to produce. If that
were possible there would be naturally occurring phenomena that exhibit
digital information-based functional complexity comparable to that of
life. There isn’t even one such natural phenomenon. So on what basis
does science insist that life came about mindlessly and accidentally?
There is no rational basis for that assumption whatsoever.

Every instance known to us of significant functional complexity
(other than that found in life), the construction of which was directed
by digitally stored information, came about with intelligent agency as
causal factor in its emergence. Every single one. There is simply no
reason whatsoever to believe that digital information-based functional
complexity can be arrived at mindlessly and accidentally.

So why does science insist on this irrational assumption? It has been
perverted by atheism, which denies the existence of realities outside
the natural realm (in particular a supernatural, intelligent designer of
life). Atheism insists on this without any rational reason to believe
that there are no such realities. Ask an atheist exactly why can’t there
be realities outside of the realm of the natural. You will find that
they have no idea. So how can they be so sure that that is the case?
They can’t. And there is much evidence that indicates that there must
be supernatural realities that transcend nature other than the evidence
that indicates that the emergence of life required a supernatural
intelligent designer.

For example, it is now the consensus of modern science that the
natural Universe – time, space, matter and energy – had a beginning.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause; of that we can be sure. Yet
from nothing (nothing in terms of the absence of time, space, matter
and energy), nothing comes; of that we can also be sure. This means that
the Universe must have been caused by a reality outside of the natural
realm – a supernatural reality. The natural Universe’s cause couldn’t
have been a natural reality because natural realities are what began to
exist. The natural Universe came into being, caused by nothing natural,
but by a supernatural reality.

Atheism has perverted science. Contemporary science needs to return
to its theistic foundation, namely, that nature’s intelligibility is
what makes science possible, and that its intelligibility is due to its
Intelligent Author.>>

What are our thoughts? Is it fair comment to suggest that materialistic atheism has ideologised and distorted science? END

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana