
Science Points to an Immaterial Mind - yters
https://mindmatters.ai/2019/06/science-points-to-an-immaterial-mind/
======
bediger4000
This is a "Discovery Institute" video and article. Read and think carefully.
Discovery Institute does not always promulgate the most careful science.

~~~
yters
Excellent advice. Always read and think carefully about claims on either side
of the mind divide.

~~~
bediger4000
Discovery Institute advocates "intelligent design", a concealed form of
creationism. It's worth reading up about intelligent design and Discovery
Institute just to inoculate your mind, I think, but I have a grudge.

~~~
yters
Did you know there are atheists/agnostics who believe in "intelligent design"
such as Nagel and Berlinski?

"intelligent design" == "creationism" is another proposition worthy of careful
thought.

~~~
bediger4000
> Did you know there are atheists/agnostics who believe in "intelligent
> design"

No, but that's an argument from authority, so maybe if I run across their
arguments I'll evaluate them very skeptically, but I'm not going to go chasing
down intelligent design arguments. I've looked at too many alreadyl

> "intelligent design" == "creationism" is another proposition worthy of
> careful thought.

Yes, and after considering it carefully, I found that equivalence to be true.
I also found Discovery Institute arguments to be almost entirely deceptive and
in bad faith, but you may believe otherwise.

~~~
yters
My point is that atheists and agnostics do not usually believe in creationism.
Therefore, their belief in intelligent design may indicate it is not
creationism.

Additionally, for the Christians who believe in intelligent design, most of
them also believe in evolution and an old earth.

So, it doesn't seem like the majority of intelligent design advocates are
themselves creationists.

My perception is most intelligent design advocates are convinced that
stochastic processes cannot generate highly complex structures with very
precisely specified functionality. Thus, they believe the source of this
functionality must lie outside of traditional evolutionary explanations.

~~~
bediger4000
There's plenty of theists and agnostics that do not believe in creationism or
intelligent design. Therefore, their disbelief in intelligent design my
indicate that it is creationism.

It does seem like the majority of intelligent design advocates are
creationists. My assertion is just as powerful as your assertion: both are
fact free.

~~~
yters
I personally know or have met almost all of the top intelligent design
proponents, such as: Dembski, Marks, Behe, Johnson, Axe, Meyer, Sanford,
Guillermo, Wells, and Sternberg. Most are certainly not of the 'god created
the world in 6 days' variety creationists. Most believe in evolution and an
old earth, consistent with most scientists today.

They only disagree with whether stochastic processes can generate highly
complex, highly specified functionality. They believe this because they
believe the evidence is very strongly in favor of their position. They are not
advocating their position because of a religious agenda.

In fact, at least for some like Sanford, it is the other way around. He is one
of the few 6 day creationist ID advocates, but he became a creationist from
being an atheist after seeing the evidence for ID.

