The abuse and ridicule heaped upon ID has to be motivated by something. If you want to believe that that motivation is on the up and up, that it is motivated by pure scientific objectivity , be my welcome guest. I shan’t be joining you.

And as for the book which began this discussion, I would refer the author to the works of Ken Wilber, who wrote “A Theory of Everything” and several other books along those lines. He talks about the Perennial Philosophy of Aldous Huxley, which philosophy exists in some form or other across nearly all cultures and all religious traditions, and disappears quite noticeably with the development of Western scientific materialism. This philosophy concerns the hierarchy of everything in the cosmos, spelled here, Kosmos, to denote everything, meaning, every conceivable thing. And this hierarchy is what is acknowledged by all the world’s wisdom traditions, all except for modern scientism, which has a worldview typified by dualism, a split between the observer and the observed.

Now the gifts of modern scientism are many, there is no doubt of that. But as with all things, there is an up side and a down side. The knowledge produced by modern scientific materialism has been abundant and beneficial. That’s the upside. The downside is that it has of necessity come at a cost – and that cost involves the denial of the human soul and a rejection of the notion that there is any conceivable ‘higher, better, deeper’ worldview than scientific materialism.

I don’t have the time to elaborate further other than to say that Ken makes the case that both science and religion can be integrated, and that the hierarchy in the universe still exists even though it may be denied by modernists and post-modernists.

Thanks for listening, and I don’t want to turn this discussion into a pro/anti evolution debate. I’ve had sufficient of that thing over the last couple years I don’t want to engage it at that level anymore.

I have seen enough shoddy evidence introduced as “overwhelming proof” and to discuss it any further is pointless because I will see the same recycled arguments reproduced ad nauseum. I no longer accept the leaps of faith of pro-Darwinian biologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, LDS or non-LDS, nor any other imaginative person who makes more out of the evidence than is there.

And I really don’t care who proves what in court. It’s all the machinations of men who care more about power, status, and ideology, than in objectivity. It’s the blind leading the blind pretending they can see.

Today, the biggest problem science faces is the extrapolation of some truth into massive assumptions that fall under their own weight. I see it as similar to the overreach of religions for many years (dinosaur bones in cathedrals). Evolution can be seen in nature but the theory of man’s evolution is a huge extrapolation that has significant issues (carbon dating has problems, the beginnings of life has significant unanswered questions and obvious issues, etc). But science has become many people’s religion-it is not a surprise that it is taking a course similar to the religions of the dark ages.