When scientists criticize intelligent design, how can we establish that God is the explanation for explainability?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
thank you scientists not explain that god is the explanation for explainability and they have come up with so many arguments against intelligent design so now again these two are not to be confused intelligent design claims that the design has come from god whereas when I talked about god is the explanation for explainability I am not talking about the design coming from god I am talking about the whole system of the universe being law bound that itself requires god as explanation the two are different, earlier in the class I mentioned that design requires designer and law requires law maker these are two different arguments intelligent design claims that the design of the things in this world cannot be adequately explained by laws and their idea is that god has to intervene in some way to make the design of this world that is an argument and there is a huge debate about that and I won’t go into that subject see we are looking at principles over here, see once we get into specifics we have to really get into the details if we get into specifics then there are so many details, so many specifics involved then we get caught in the intricacies of specific theories and then we may give this evidence and somebody will come up with this argument somebody will come up with this argument, it goes on lot and we have to get deep into the field so rather than focusing on the focus on the specifics of certain theories, see we are not primarily scientists and we can’t claim that we know more about science than scientists that will not work people cannot, unless we have really that much knowledge if we try to, we can’t really compete with scientists in their game, but what our question is that does science explain everything no see science is a tool for acquiring knowledge science is itself neither theistic nor atheistic science is like a map of the world a map is used for navigating but the map itself does not tell what kind of people are living in the territory, map is a map, so currently the map of science is primarily being used by atheists to promote atheism but theists can also use the map of science to promote theism but then what we are talking about right now is, science rather than trying to get into specific theories within science, we are looking at science as a broad body of knowledge and what science can validly explain and what science cannot validly explain so science begins with the assumption that there is order in nature that assumption had not been there, in Newton when he saw the fruit falling he asked how did this fruit fall down asking the question how did this fruit fall down presumes that there is some rational explanation for why the fruit fall down, so now on what basis can science assume that there is a rational functioning in nature that nature functioning according to the rational order on what basis can science say that and even when sometimes science find that things are not rationally explainable so for example Newton’s theory of gravity, when science went deep into the subatomic realm they found the fundamental particles they don’t seem to be following the rules of Newtonian physics at that time also science continued with the faith that there must be some deeper order and then by that they have come up with quantum physics so the point is science operates on the faith that there is order in nature now we are asking the question what is the rational for this faith so the two are different arguments and the two we can also use the intelligent design as an argument but then we have to be well equipped it’s like if you have to play a particular game you have to learn that game properly so there are intelligent design theorists have also countered whatever atheists have argued against and it’s a very heated debate going on but I am talking at a different level right now what I am talking about is at a level of fundamental things that why does science on what basis does science assume that the universe has a rational order so the basis for that the most coherent basis for that is the order of the universe rests in god otherwise if everything came just by chance why would the things have order so what science does is mainstream science right now it stops with the natural order and it doesn’t ask the question where the natural order came from and atheists may argue that everywhere in all schools of thought it stops somewhere so you go beyond the natural order to god we stop with the natural order but then natural order it begs an explanation where did it come from so we accept the explaining power of science we are using it use technology in Krishna’s service we accept the explaining power of science but we are not questioning science directly what we are saying is on what basis there is a particular world view that science uses that science assumes for it to function and what is the rationale for that world so science itself could not function if it assumed that the world was disorderly it assumed the world is orderly and why does science assume like this what is the most rational explanation for the world being order that is god that the world reflects the intelligence of god does it address your question thank you