Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.

Modulus, it seems to me you are mistaken when it comes to interpreting the quotes that you have used. Maybe its the evolutionary 'air' in this place that you are unwilling to see the real meaning behind them. This quote is not an early rebuke of design argument. Instead Gallileo is saying that the God who has given us these senses, also wanted us to use them. In other words, God wants us to seek His glory by performing science and try to see how things work. This is Gallileo FOR design.likewise with Newton Do you not see that Newton believes in equations to explain all this. He is not questioning the idea of more equations governing more than what he has figured out. BUT he is questioning the idea that ALL this randomly organized itself into what we see. Emphasis mine.Newton is talking about birth, he does not question the idea of understanding the motion via mechanical means, but he questions mechanical means assembling all this without guidance. Newton believes God wrote the equations. Whereas you believe the big bang somehow generated the equations for objects to obey, but also for them to follow such intricate paths. Newton is saying he DISPROVES of the idea of randomness assembling all the planets the way they are.It is too bad that so many people misinterpret what Newton is clearly saying. Newton is not invoking God because he cannot explain things further. He is invoking God as the originator of everything.Design arguments are not ignorance. Lets perform two science experiments:Science experiment 1.
Observation:
-life comes from life.
-information comes from informationConclusion:
since life cannot come from innate matter alone, and information does not assemble by itself by chance. There must be a intelligent source behind life, and the information coded within it to carry out its intricate tasks.Science experiment 2
observations
-information (messages from a sender to a recipient) has never been observed to come from chance.
-life has never been observed to come from non-living material.
-human designers can assemble improbable objects together via information to perform tasks that randomness alone would be insufficient.Conclusion.
Even though information has not been observed to come from chance, and life has never been shown to come from non-living things, WE CANNOT invoke an intelligent cause for them. For this would imply a being we are accountable to. Since we don't like this, even though we are without excuse, OUR conclusion is that life and information all came about by chance. Time and chance is our saviour. Time and Chance is our escape from this unwanted Designer.so.. which is the ignorant followers of anti-science?
you pick.

---

We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation. Information, Science and Biology | Answers in Genesis

.He is saying that the Bible doesn't tell us how everything works. On those matter we need to use our senses. But conclusions reached in the Bible should be used in science. Otherwise, if the good book is wrong, then God himself did not know the universe He allegedly created. And the rejection of the Bible all together seems to be the logical consequence. I hear people use the argument that God used metaphors and poetry in Genesis because people back then would not understand how God really did make the universe. Well, since God created everything, including language, God must be some sort of in-articulate being with an incomplete vocabulary. But since God is the powerful being we so believe, He must be able to communicate to us, and able to do it well. The reason why people do not always agree, is because they let fallible scientists tell them what happened so long ago, instead of listening to God, who Himself was there.And Galileo was mistaken that God did not speak about the universe very often. In Genesis, God goes through an account on how He created everything. D. Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. uses the first few verses to explain how God created the universe with the physics we have today, including black holes, white holes and the theory of relativity in his book 'Starlight and Time'. He also uses the several verses (17) that mention God spreading the heavens like a tent, which indicate a fourth dimension besides the 3 we are used to. But also that this hints that space is really something that can be stretched bent and so forth. For the Bible also mentions rolling the heavens up like a scroll. Some people like to dismiss this as metaphors, but God mentions this several times and throughout the Bible that it is hard to ignore as something real.Anyways, it really is surprising how much information is in the Bible that we just haven't seen before because at first glance it does not register to the non-physicist mind what God is really talking about.
But I am positive God reserved these verses for later on when people are figuring out more and more of His creation. But this shows as well, that there is truth in the Bible concerning physics and astronomy. But I agree, the Bible is no science textbook. For God wants us to do the exploring. You must admit that chance is the beginning of evolution. I know that natural selection is the supposed guiding factor for evolution. I know hat natural selection is not chance. But natural selection only operates on organisms that are able to reproduce, replicate, duplicate or whatever. Bear in mind that to make the first living thing, natural selection could not work. It is then that the randomness really plays the role that most people forget about.Edited by Confidence, : No reason given.

---

We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation. Information, Science and Biology | Answers in Genesis

Maybe you confuse me with whoever has a God Did It conclusion. I do not believe that science is evil. I believe science is a tool for us to understand the world around us, but also to glorify God with the marvel at how the creation works. I believe naturalism is a philosophy(religion) that is never conclusive because it assumes there is no God. But not science. I'm surprised that one such as you made a statement like this. The reason why we continue in science is not because there are no conclusions, but because there is so much depth, intricacies, beauty just waiting to be explored.For instance, we can conclude that atoms exist. We have observed them, but we can continue farther, electrons and protons exist. But what makes up protons and electrons? ... science, delving deeper into the glory of God. It is a continuous quest, because the Creator is infinite in wisdom. Who knows how much farther we can go into the nature of the basic elements that we know right now, or the limits of the universe? Laws of physics, mathematics. The weather, the human mind. All wonders of creation to be explored.Just a reminder that the Creator might not take to well to have His handy work being attributed to randomness. Or whatever forces other than Him you might attribute it to.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.