Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List


subscribe to our mailing list:



SECTIONS

Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes

Counter-Apologetics

Serious Notions with a Smile

Miscellaneous

Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site

Discussion

You can read and reply to the existing discussion threads related to the article, or create a new thread:

Your name *:
Your email *:
Security question *: 17 + 8 =
Related article(s):
Subject *:
Message *:
     Length: (max.: 3000 characters)

 

Title Author Date
No Supernatural Causes Gaudia, Gil Sep 28, 2005
Eric Murphy makes a good point in pointing out that God, ghosts and any "supernatural" phenomena can not exist in a natural world, i.e., that they are examples of as yet not explained phenomena. I would add one other point--that "supernatural" phenomena would not contain mass or energy (otherwise they would be natural phenomena)and so they could not interact with natural phenomena. How could God cause a mechanical system like a living body to change unless God was made of and employed mass or energy to bring about the change? What would the interface between the "supernatural" and the natural consist of?

 

Title Author Date
Excellent Point Strumfels, David Sep 28, 2005
Very much enjoyed this essay, which demonstrates a critical point: if IDers truly were interested in science, they could formulate their ideas into a set of testable, scientifically meaningful hypotheses. The fact that they do not do so, that they are only trying to hide (their particular) religious beliefs under a pseudo-scientific cloak, needs to be stressed more, especially in court cases.

Only quibble is with the conservation of mass-energy being a genuine natural law. As I understand quantum mechanics, violations of this law are allowed, albeit over only very short time spans -- this follows from the Uncertainty Principle. Hence the "quantum foam" of classically empty space. Which actually illustrates another point: scientists can and do revise their doctrines about how nature works, when and if the evidence warrants it. They are not, ID accusations and insinuations to the contrary, blind dogmatists. If IDers really were onto something, scientists would modify or reject evolution accordingly. Relativity and quantum mechanics show this openness in action.