Scientists speak out about evidence of Intelligent Design in nature..

[SelfSim]

Oberg's conclusion reveals her reasoning as being circular ..

5:37:
'.. a natural transformation from inanimate objects to animate organisms, using the tendency of molecules to organize themselves into interesting structures under the laws of chemistry, we are not limiting God’s role in creation. God is always the primary cause and the giver of existence to all. Rather, we are celebrating what kind of creator he has revealed himself to be ..'

She adopts Aquinas' primary and secondary layer causal model (with no physical evidence whatsoever) and then reasserts them as being truths. The notion of God being the giver of existence, has no equivalency merits, when compared with objective biomolecular research hypotheses within the context of Assembly theory. This, therefore excludes any soft-landings afforded via Occams Razor. Her reasoning is classic circularity by way of asserted truth-by-definition.
That's not how science works .. and its not what about to happen in Astrobiological Origin of Life Research.

She will be in crisis mode .. or she'll have to admit she's just spinning yet another a belief-based parable.

 

[SelfSim]

I imagine it's her belief system apart from her work in science at Harvard and wherever else.

How do you wonder I hypothesize this is the case about her? Maybe we should peruse her catalog of published work, looking for hints of "God-talk"? I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that if we read everything she's published, we'll find little God-talk in her overall work.

I'm perusing the 'Outreach' part of her resume (see here). (My emboldenments below by way of explaining, possibly, her recent outreaches, (or is it her 'coming out'?), which commenced in 2016). Looks like she did most of her mainstream astronomical work before that(?):

'Harvard Alumni Association (HAA) Speakers Bureau Program 2017
Interviewed for the ‘Living Universe’ TV show, 2016
Faculty organizer for the Thomistic Institute at Harvard 2016–
Co-founder and board member of the Society of Catholic Scientists, 2016
Lecturer at the Science and Religion Seminar series for Catholic high school teachers, University of Notre Dame, 2016
Interviewed for Smithsonian channel documentary: Eyes of the Atacama, 2015 (aired September 2016)
Interviewed for NHK documentary on chemical complexity in space, 2015
Profiled for the ‘The Year In Space calendar’, 2015
Press release on O ̈berg et al. Nature, 2015 and substantial press coverage including Washington Post, LA Times, and the Discovery channel'.

..
The concerns some have about the Templeton Foundation are expressed in the following article:

Bains, Sunny. "Questioning the integrity of the John Templeton Foundation." Evolutionary Psychology 9, no. 1 (2011): 92-115.

Thanks. Will have a read when I get the chance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oberg's conclusion reveals her reasoning as being circular ..

5:37:
'.. a natural transformation from inanimate objects to animate organisms, using the tendency of molecules to organize themselves into interesting structures under the laws of chemistry, we are not limiting God’s role in creation. God is always the primary cause and the giver of existence to all. Rather, we are celebrating what kind of creator he has revealed himself to be ..'

She adopts Aquinas' primary and secondary layer causal model (with no physical evidence whatsoever) and then reasserts them as being truths. The notion of God being the giver of existence, has no equivalency merits, when compared with objective biomolecular research hypotheses within the context of Assembly theory. This, therefore excludes any soft-landings afforded via Occams Razor. Her reasoning is classic circularity by way of asserted truth-by-definition.
That's not how science works .. and its not what about to happen in Astrobiological Origin of Life Research.

She will be in crisis mode .. or she'll have to admit she's just spinning yet another a belief-based parable.

I doubt she'll be in crisis mode any time soon. If she finds herself in that sort of dissonance, she can find me and we'll have coffee together for a chat.

 

[sjastro]

I'm curious as to how DeepSeek answers this question that I posed to chatGPT

Can't you download DeepSeek?

​

DeepSeek's response is more accurate, its orbit is very nearly circular due to the orbital resonance with Dione. The orbital resonance keeps Enceladus in its near circular orbit and contributes to internal tidal heating,

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes .. at the 5:07 mark, she said:

'Scientifically, we know that God formed the Earth through the secondary causality of dust coagulation, and that he produced animals through the secondary causality of species evolving under natural selection'.

That has nothing to do with what we 'scientifically know' thesedays.

Any sentence that starts "Scientifically we know that god" is definitionally wrong. We know nothing of god scientifically.

Its not clear whether they are her words or Aquinas' philosophical musings .. seems like an very poorly worded ambiguous dialogue at best .. not a good look at all is ambiguity like this, when one is tackling such tricky topics in a publically available, (Templeton funded), YT.

Every time I come back to this it gets worse and worse.

 

[Hans Blaster]

“[removed]”
‭‭

Nothing in your post has anything to do with the topic at hand.

 

[awstar]

Can't you download DeepSeek?

I don't want to appear unfaithful to chatGPT. we have a good relationship established.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭18‬-‭32‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Congratulations, you post a Bible quote. All that does is show you can quote the Bible.

 

[Joseph G]

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭18‬-‭32‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

1 Corinthians 1:18-31 NIV

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

God bless all who will believe!

biblegateway.com

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

1 Corinthians 1:18-31 NIV

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

God bless all who will believe!

biblegateway.com

And nothing in there about Intelligent Design being scientific.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Any sentence that starts "Scientifically we know that god" is definitionally wrong. We know nothing of god scientifically.

Every time I come back to this it gets worse and worse.

Context is everything, Hans. Remember, the key association I have with Oberg here is simply in having presented as a simile rather that as a comprehensive explanation. But you've interpreted my so doing as an attempt at a comprehensive explanation, missing the simple point I was attempting to make: that unlike those in the I.D. camp, even if God is acting in Nature, we won't be able to discern this activity.

So, ........................ while I may start with Methodological Naturalism and go from there, a Catholic like Oberg will start with Aquinas' ancient ontology and work from there. Even by doing so, she can still value the Cosmology and Astrophysics in a similar way without going all I.D. about it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Context is everything, Hans. Remember, the key association I have with Oberg here is simply in having presented as a simile rather that as a comprehensive explanation. But you've interpreted my so doing as an attempt at a comprehensive explanation, missing the simple point I was attempting to make: that unlike those in the I.D. camp, even if God is acting in Nature, we won't be able to discern this activity.

I do understand that is why you originally posted the video, but the conversation regarding the video has moved from it being some sort of window to a view of yours (as you originally intended, but I never quite got, and no longer hold any interest in) to the video and its presenter.

So, ........................ while I may start with Methodological Naturalism and go from there, a Catholic like Oberg will start with Aquinas' ancient ontology and work from there.

THAT'S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS (and she should know that). Science begins with methodological naturalism, ends with methodological naturalism, and uses methodological naturalism all the way through. There is no special Catholic alternative. I was a Catholic long before I was a scientist including all through my training. Never was there a hint that any alternative like "Aquinas' ancient ontology" could be inserted for the methodological naturalism of science. (Who even heard of "Aquinas' ancient ontology" anyway. It certainly wasn't part of any curriculum.)

I've known many Catholic scientists and none have ever suggested anything like that. And I've certainly known many scientists who are Catholics, but I don't know their religion. Religious affiliation is generally something you don't learn about your colleagues until it starts to bleed through from their personal lives.

Even by doing so, she can still value the Cosmology and Astrophysics in a similar way without going all I.D. about it.

That's not saying much. We all know of even YECists who profess a love of science that doesn't challenge their world view and I have met YEC-believing scientists who are perfectly comfortable using methodological naturalism where it doesn't challenge there YEC views.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I do understand that is why you originally posted the video, but the conversation regarding the video has moved from it being some sort of window to a view of yours (as you originally intended, but I never quite got, and no longer hold any interest in) to the video and its presenter.


THAT'S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS (and she should know that). Science begins with methodological naturalism, ends with methodological naturalism, and uses methodological naturalism all the way through. There is no special Catholic alternative. I was a Catholic long before I was a scientist including all through my training. Never was there a hint that any alternative like "Aquinas' ancient ontology" could be inserted for the methodological naturalism of science. (Who even heard of "Aquinas' ancient ontology" anyway. It certainly wasn't part of any curriculum.)

I've known many Catholic scientists and none have ever suggested anything like that. And I've certainly known many scientists who are Catholics, but I don't know their religion. Religious affiliation is generally something you don't learn about your colleagues until it starts to bleed through from their personal lives.

Typically, one has to ask specific questions about religious views from others in order to receive specific answers.

That's not saying much. We all know of even YECists who profess a love of science that doesn't challenge their world view and I have met YEC-believing scientists who are perfectly comfortable using methodological naturalism where it doesn't challenge there YEC views.

You must know more YECists who rely on Methodological Naturalism than I do. Because I know of none, and of those YEC and ID proponents I have encountered and heard over the past 20 years, most if not all of them eschewed Methodological Naturalism.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Typically, one has to ask specific questions about religious views from others in order to receive specific answers.

Which would be rude and, in some cases, illegal. (If any above me had ever asked, and they haven't, I would refuse to answer. LIkewise I can't ask that question of anyone below me.) If your religious views are intruding into your science, something has gone horribly wrong.

You must know more YECists who rely on Methodological Naturalism than I do. Because I know of none, and of those YEC and ID proponents I have encountered and heard over the past 20 years, most if not all of them eschewed Methodological Naturalism.

It is a limited form of methodological naturalism to their own work and the reason virtually all of them work in places away from areas that would be impacted by their religious convictions. I do not know them personally, but I am aware that they do in fact exist. Non-YEC religious scientists are much more common. There is nothing about the physics of semiconductors that relates to YEC/ID/other religious topics, so it is not a problem to believe the earth is 6000 years old and study semiconductors. What does become a problem is when you start thinking that the band gap is a property being chosen by a divinity. That's not going to fly in any journal.

 

[dlamberth]

She will be in crisis mode .. or she'll have to admit she's just spinning yet another a belief-based parable.

I seriously doubt that she will be in any kind of crisis mode.

 

[SelfSim]

I seriously doubt that she will be in any kind of crisis mode.

.. and you might well have access to that luxury .. but intellectual honesty in scientific research, demands confrontation of objective truths.
(Where what I mean by 'objective truths' there, are the results from the last best tested theories).

Crises happen when objective truths confront beliefs such as the beliefs posited in Thomism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which would be rude and, in some cases, illegal. (If any above me had ever asked, and they haven't, I would refuse to answer. LIkewise I can't ask that question of anyone below me.) If your religious views are intruding into your science, something has gone horribly wrong.

I wasn't intending to refer to asking about another person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in the workplace on work time. Yeah, we all know how that goes. Rather, I was thinking more along the lines of a casual chat at lunch, but I guess people's political sensitivities are too heightened these days for casual talk. What a shame.

It is a limited form of methodological naturalism to their own work and the reason virtually all of them work in places away from areas that would be impacted by their religious convictions. I do not know them personally, but I am aware that they do in fact exist. Non-YEC religious scientists are much more common. There is nothing about the physics of semiconductors that relates to YEC/ID/other religious topics, so it is not a problem to believe the earth is 6000 years old and study semiconductors. What does become a problem is when you start thinking that the band gap is a property being chosen by a divinity. That's not going to fly in any journal.

Well, you apparently have encountered more YEC's in a professional setting than I have, then.

 

[SelfSim]

Rather, I was thinking more along the lines of a casual chat at lunch, but I guess people's political sensitivities are too heightened these days for casual talk. What a shame.

Its amusing how 'political sensitivities' suddenly appears in a conversation about religious beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its amusing how 'political sensitivities' suddenly appears in a conversation about religious beliefs.

You'd be surprised how many religious icons are on national flags; and how many references to God are in national anthems.

Not to mention our motto:

IN GOD WE TRUST

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Its amusing how 'political sensitivities' suddenly appears in a conversation about religious beliefs.

It is amusing, isn't it?