Guy Threepwood
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2019
- 1,143
- 73
- 53
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
That characterization is a bit extreme - the steady-state model was the default until Einstein acknowledged Le Maitre's work. Hoyle thought the idea of a beginning to the universe was unscientific and that scientists supporting it were unconsciously influenced by biblical creation. But he wasn't averse to the idea of intelligent interference in nature, if not intelligent design.
Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia
Hoyle [] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"
This was the default for academic materialists, atheists, for obvious reasons: no creation = no creator. It was certainly not the default assumption for most people, then or now.
Interesting that the primeval atom was 'religious pseudoscience' until proven beyond most reasonable doubt - while steady state/ static universes/ big crunch were all accepted as 'likely true' in this same circle until proven false beyond most reasonable doubt. A tiny bit of a double standard?
Seriously? that's not my experience. Creative intelligence is at the core of methodological naturalism; how else can we formulate hypotheses?
As an explanatory power for the laws of nature?
You may be different, but many atheists label the concept of an intelligent designer off the table entirely as inherently supernatural.
Upvote
0