Absolutely. Nonetheless, Richard Dawkins is a highly regarded professor at Oxford and not some loon who runs a two-bit web page on the internet. In fact, he is Oxford’s ‘Professor for Public Understanding of Science’. And what the good professor wants the public to know is that their religion is dead---according to science, and that they should put their faith in natural selection instead.Originally Posted by Hopelite
And in The God Delusion Dawkins is pretty adamant about it. So, yes, there is a movement afoot to use science to disprove religion. Which makes the ‘ID back-lash’ in public schools at least somewhat predictable.
I’m confident Hoyle was aware of the distinction. Sir Fred Hoyle was a well known British mathematician and astronomer. When the mathematicians start to claim that your hypothesis is questionable from the standpoint of probability, attention should be paid. In fact, it should probably be scrapped.Originally Posted by Hopelite
Not so, with abiogenesis. If it goes down, it takes the materialist worldview with it. It’s that simple, really.
When SETI points their radio telescope up at the sky, they are looking for evidence of design amongst the random noise. In a very basic sense, their science is an exercise in design detection. Are they required to make anything but some very general statements about the putative aliens based on what they detect?Originally Posted by Hopelite
Of course not. How could anyone expect them to? It’s not a reasonable expectation; furthermore, the nature of the putative alien has absolutely nothing to do with their science.
I don’t understand the apparent double-standard that is applied to detecting design in biology.