Wednesday, February 13, 2008

An Intelligent Discussion About Intelligent Design

A Lecture by Dr. James F. Sennett
Monday , Mar 10, 2008 7 pm
Parra Ballroom
McNeese State University
Lake Charles, LA
Free Admission

Are the universe and the life found in it best explained by the blind forces of nature or by an intelligent designer? Dr. James F. Sennett explains and defends the contemporary case for intelligent design.

Dr. Sennett, associate professor of philosophy at Brenau University, holds the Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Nebraska and an M.Div. in Old Testament Studies from Lincoln Christian Seminary. Dr. Sennett has penned dozens of philosophical and theological journal articles and is the author of “Modality, Probability, and Rationality: A Critical Examination of Alvin Plantinga's Philosophy.” Most recently, Dr. Sennett is the editor of both “The Analytic Theist” and “In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Assessment.”


Rebecca said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

He didn't defend, actually. It was much more of a promotional tool than a lecture.

Anonymous said...

In his talk, he claimed that scientific observation must result in three things: patterns, unpredictable occurences, or design.

After listening to the talk, I still fail to see why "design" is even a third option of scientific inquiry.

While I understand the consideration of "design" in reference to E.T. (i.e. SETI) research, but even that research is suspect.

I need to read Dembski before I buy into a single word of intelligent design.

Orpheus said...

The intelligent design argument is plausible only if we assume that the creation of the universe (i.e., the big bang) is a unique event. In this case the improbability of the event verges on the statistically impossible. However, if ours is but one among an infinity of universes (the "multiverse" hypothesis), the result of an infinite number of "big bangs" in the limitless expanse of quantum nothingness, then the creation of our universe (and others like it) becomes not only probable, but inevitable. I regard naturalistic explanations as in all cases superior to supernatural explanations; hence, the multiverse hypothesis is superior to the intelligent design hypothesis.