Your post stated "Human intelligence is what allows man to understand Nature and it is this very same intelligence that detects the 'intelligence' behind the creation.
I pose this for your consideration. If we acknowledge God as Omniscient, that is "all science" or "all knowing", then isn't it God who is the only intelligence and his 'knowing' is revealed to us through our spiritual perception of the universe. If God is understood to be the only Ego, and allowed to be the only Ego, then the unfoldment of the universe and of the Divine Nature is revealed, and as we acknowledge this Ego, and let go of human self, we are relieved of the responsibility to try and understand the universe in human terms, which is inadequate to comprehend so infinite a theme. God, as Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence, precludes any other power, any other mind, and any other presence except His infinite being and His infinite manifestation of which we are simply the reflection and expression of His glory.
"Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up." James 4:10
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:59:01 Moorad Alexanian wrote: >I posted the following on the ongoing discussion in the Chronicle of Higher >Education. Moorad > > >http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2001/design/45.htm > >It is difficult to discuss issues involving the word science without >unequivocally defining what one means by it. It should be remarked that the >subject matter of science is data collected by physical devices. In physics, >knowing is based on evidence obtained via the interactions of >particles/fields. If something cannot, in principle, be measured by physical >devices, then that something is outside the purview of science. This gives a >clear demarcation of what science is and what it is not. > >Of course, one ought to distinguish historical science, e.g., cosmology, >evolutionary theory, etc., from physics. The former is more akin to forensic >science and deals only with unique events; whereas physics is the prototype >of experimental science. This definition of science is what requires that >the evidentiary data of the historical sciences must be collectible by >physical devices. > >Accordingly, science cannot indeed "deal with ethics, aesthetics, >metaphysics, and so on." The real question is, what does "and so on" >include? It clearly includes man unless one makes the philosophical jump >from science to scientism or materialism. > >Gould’s magisteria represents a disjoint set of science and religion and so >it also excludes man. Note, however, that John Eccles says, "It [ego or >self] is essential to the concept each of us has of being a self," and he >adds, "in the religious sense it corresponds to the soul." Accordingly, >consciousness cannot be determined or measured with physical devices and so >it is not the subject matter of science. Only the non-physical self in man >can detect consciousness in the same fashion that the theist perceives God. > >Eugenie Scott ought to realize that it is the non-physical in man that >summarizes data collected by physical devices into physical laws and thus >creates theories based on the mathematics that man has invented. Yes, human >intelligence is what allows man to understand Nature and it is this very >same intelligence that "detects" the intelligence behind the Creation. > > >-- Moorad Alexanian, Professor of Physics, University of North Carolina at >Wilmington (posted 12/18, 10:45 a.m., U.S. Eastern time > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 18 2001 - 14:12:33 EST