Does defining that something has intelligence involved harm understanding that something?
Imagine that a scientist like Newton finds an LED television. For those who don't know Newton, he was an extremely religious man. And he wrote several religious books. He was a great connoisseur of the Scriptures: he analyzed the Bible in detail, notations that demonstrate this are for example "Various drafts and copies of the Two Notable Corruptions of the Scriptures and related material", from 1690.
Thus, if Newton found the TV, he would consider that such an object was produced by an intelligent mind. In fact, throughout the universe, Newton considered it to have been made by an intelligent entity. And with that, Newton developed several tools to understand the universe. Among them, the so-called 3 Newton's Laws. Which determines that considering that something was produced by an intelligent mind does not create a problem for those who want to develop science.
According to the current mechanisms of science, if a 20th century scientist were using the same current dogmas, he would have to consider that the LCD would have been produced by undirected natural systems. This occurs because the option of having been produced by a rational entity is prohibited. That is, it is the search for the praise of a dogma.
Considering that the universe was produced by an intelligent entity is not a problem for understanding the universe. Since Newton considered that the universe was created by an intelligent entity, and Newton was a great scientist with several discoveries.
Current science has a serious problem, the praise of its dogma thus prohibits the idea of an intelligent entity other than the human being.
Thus, the search for random mechanisms for the formation of things that we see may occur, and is already occurring, and this search will develop more and more closed paths, which cause scientists to make mistakes and make mistakes. The problem is not in not using the random option, but in prohibiting the directed one. Science can never go forward based on the ban on using a system of theory, at the cost of being called unscientific. This is nothing more than the purest form of dogmatic imposition, with the false guise of science.
Imagine that a scientist like Newton finds an LED television. For those who don't know Newton, he was an extremely religious man. And he wrote several religious books. He was a great connoisseur of the Scriptures: he analyzed the Bible in detail, notations that demonstrate this are for example "Various drafts and copies of the Two Notable Corruptions of the Scriptures and related material", from 1690.
Thus, if Newton found the TV, he would consider that such an object was produced by an intelligent mind. In fact, throughout the universe, Newton considered it to have been made by an intelligent entity. And with that, Newton developed several tools to understand the universe. Among them, the so-called 3 Newton's Laws. Which determines that considering that something was produced by an intelligent mind does not create a problem for those who want to develop science.
According to the current mechanisms of science, if a 20th century scientist were using the same current dogmas, he would have to consider that the LCD would have been produced by undirected natural systems. This occurs because the option of having been produced by a rational entity is prohibited. That is, it is the search for the praise of a dogma.
Considering that the universe was produced by an intelligent entity is not a problem for understanding the universe. Since Newton considered that the universe was created by an intelligent entity, and Newton was a great scientist with several discoveries.
Current science has a serious problem, the praise of its dogma thus prohibits the idea of an intelligent entity other than the human being.
Thus, the search for random mechanisms for the formation of things that we see may occur, and is already occurring, and this search will develop more and more closed paths, which cause scientists to make mistakes and make mistakes. The problem is not in not using the random option, but in prohibiting the directed one. Science can never go forward based on the ban on using a system of theory, at the cost of being called unscientific. This is nothing more than the purest form of dogmatic imposition, with the false guise of science.