ANDY TIMMONS ~ Deliver Us
Bush Says US Will Lift Sanctions Against North Korea
Cop shoots himself at Sarkozy farewell in Israel
Let's Go Slumming with the dumpster diving Freegans of San Diego!
CLICK MESound Waves May Drive Cosmic Structure
And God SAID
The Physics of Sound
The Physics of SoundTiny particles of sand are strewn on a smooth disk and subjected to vibrations being passed into the surface, they immediately begin to take form and arrange into a multitude of geometrically perfect designs. Some variations of these vibrations create known geometric patterns such as hexagons (honeycombs), pentagrams, crosses, spirals, and many other infinite combinations. The amazing patterns found on animals and insect wings are easily explained in this simple experiment. Sound and vibration give birth to form. In one particular vibratory sequence, opposite oscillations were resonated though the disk - the sand particles then condensed upon other, rolling into spheres, and then the smaller of the spheres began to revolve around the larger spheres. This is the portrait of our universe. Zoom into our cellular and atomic structure and it is found there as well
~ Water Sound Images ~
The above video is from Alexander Lauterwassers' "WATER SOUND IMAGES" which chronicles his incredible research on how sound creates form.
You can purchase the full 2 hour DVD at www.wasserklangbilder.de
When you think about FORM being directed by SOUND the parting of the sea for Moshe and the Hebrews does not seem near as impossible... does it? DELIVER US!
Proud Pagan Witch Supports Obama's Poverty Bill
Today in Biblical History: Rabbi Yonason Goldson
Presbyterian USA bashing of Israel shows how Jews can be clueless
Ofra Haza - Deliver Us ~ Hebrew version
From "The Prince Of Egypt"
King of the West Bank
Big post on this guy coming soon to a spleen near you
CLICK ME, YA MUGSScience's Blind Spot
People, however, are not generally aware of the extent to which rationalism, particularly in its naturalist expression, is the result of religious influences. The heart of Hunter's book outlines these influences. Theological naturalism was a solution to the problem of reconciling creation with a wise and loving creator. For theological naturalists, assigning creation to various natural laws isolates God from perceived imperfections or "evils" in the world. Hunter dwells into the history of naturalism, highlighting the often neglected whig theologian Thomas Burnet along with better known figures like Immanuel Kant. But ultimately, this theological naturalism led to a methodological naturalism in the sciences. The search for exclusively natural clauses became something of a game rule in science, but the theological basis for it is often overlooked.
Nonetheless, naturalism presents problems, not the least of which is the "blind spot" referenced in the title of the book. When a naturalistic paradigm fails, it does not occur to scientists to examine non-natural explanations. Indeed, there is a tendency to create false dichotomies (either evolution is "true" or all observations of species must reveal only some sort of ideal perfection--otherwise there would be a "bad" design which a creator or other designer could not possibly make.) Needless to add, this sort of reasoning effectively pre-empts alternative suggestions. But it also includes stunning theological suppositions that its adherents are loath to acknowledge. Why, for example, must we assume that a designer would always opt for what we consider a perfect design? As Hunter correctly notes, that this was an assumption of some 18th century natural theologians hardly means it is prescriptive for all natural theology.
There are a number of important implications to the arguments in Hunter's book. One is that religious assumptions are far more common in the sciences than many would be willing to acknowledge. Indeed, much of the "evidence" in Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is essentially theological arguments about how nature "should be" rather than simply an empirical discussion of how it is. Historians have known this for some time. (Readers interested in pursuing this subject further should examine historian Gertrude Himmelfarb's masterful Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution.) But amazingly enough, such reasoning persists into the modern era. When SJ Gould declares the Panda's Thumb an inadequate design, he is making a theological claim, not a scientific one. Similar arguments abound in supposedly scientific literature. That these same writers are often critical of design theorists for supposedly bringing "religious" values and ideas into science merely demonstrates the extent of the blindspot Hunter describes.
But this book raises a broader question as well. Is "science" possible without some metaphysical insight. Although Hunter does not mention it, in the broadest sense the answer to this question is no. We must, as Einstein admitted, acknowledge that a prerequisite of science is the presumption that the universe is understandable at all. But beyond that, can a science be constructed that is truly empirical? Or are we stuck between the theological naturalism of many modern biologists, and the theological alternative(s) suggested by intelligent design. Hunter suggests it can by returning to Bacon's "moderate" empiricism. But what would such an empiricism entail? For one thing, it would require the admission that naturalism really is only a game rule, and not an overarching theological construct as it is for such scientists as Howard Van Till and Kenneth Miller. It would also require that we reject the few atheists (Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins come to mind here) who attempt to appropriate naturalism for their own purposes. As a game rule, naturalism is not a "universal solvent" that dissolves all religious claims, whatever our atheist friends might wish. Accepting Hunter's moderate empiricism would not even "destroy" evolution as a useful working hypothesis. But it would have the effect of seriously limiting what questions science could answer. More important, it would require that we again integrate learning.
As Hunter so eloquently notes, there "are rich multifaceted problems that include reasoning from a variety of disciplines. We cannot understand such problems with narrow appeals to just science, or just philosophy, or just theology, or just history. The full range of knowledge ought to be considered."(p.145) The research possibilities such a moderate empiricism offers are tremendous, but they undermine the dominance theological naturalism currently enjoys under the label of "science," and it is unlikely the high priesthood of this religion will give up so easily. Indeed, they currently enjoy a monopoly on the presentation of their religious views in the public sector and they are unlikely to share it. After all, it is easier to accuse one's opponents of religious fanaticism than to examine the mote in one's own eye.
CLICK ME TOOFERAL NATION AKBAR!
OYMERTA!
No comments:
Post a Comment