I am not arguing natural process vs. intelligent intervention as an either/or proposition. I am arguing natural processes without intelligent intervention vs. natural processes with intelligent intervention as an either/or proposition (which it must be via the law of excluded middle.) When I refer to intelligent intervention being necessary, I mean necessary to explain observation, not necessary for life to develop as it has. It is entirely possible that life could develop by natural processes alone, but in actuality it had help from intelligent intervention. For science to accept this, there must be evidence that intelligent intervention did indeed occur. Occam's razor certainly points to the assumption that intelligent intervention did not occur. There is no scientific evidence showing that any other intelligence other than human intelligence exists or has existed in the past. (Not saying it hasn't, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But in the absence of evidence, science will assume that there hasn't been) Since intelligent intervention in the development of pre-human life would require a non-human intelligence and there's no evidence that any such intelligence exists (or did exist in the past), Occam's razor points to the simplest explanation, namely that the development of life occurred via natural processes without the help of any intelligence. As I have stated before, if evidence is presented that shows the likely existence of such a non-human intelligence, science should (and I believe) will take it seriously. If the evidence points to the likelihood that such an intelligence interfered with the development of pre-human life on earth, then again, I think science should take this seriously. (I have my doubts about some scientists doing so, but that's a flaw in the nature of these scientists, not in the current theory of evolution.)
Hey, shubi, you're missing all the "fun" over here.
The problem is that we know for a fact that, at the very least, there is no excluded middle when we consider things on a grand scale, because we know that both intelligent intervention and natural processes can occur at the same time.
You can make a slightly better case for applying the law of the excluded middle to individual cases, but it is irrelevant to the overarching fact that intelligent intervention can and does occur even as natural processes are on-going.
When I refer to intelligent intervention being necessary, I mean necessary to explain observation, not necessary for life to develop as it has. It is entirely possible that life could develop by natural processes alone, but in actuality it had help from intelligent intervention. For science to accept this, there must be evidence that intelligent intervention did indeed occur.
Let's consider human-induced dog, horse, or food-plant breeds. If you were confronted with this profusion of breed characteristics, would you deem human intervention to be "necessary?" No -- you could also think up some "natural" process by which the breeds formed ("nature's ingenious adaptation...."). Thus the argument from necessity ends up missing the true fact of human intervention.
There is no scientific evidence showing that any other intelligence other than human intelligence exists or has existed in the past. (Not saying it hasn't, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Which is to say: you're excluding direct evidence that intelligence can allegedly evolve, and at the same time you're claiming lack of evidence. And yet if intelligence evolved once, and is so obviously advantageous, then one can easily theorize that it has evolved in some manner before. It's a very reasonable hypothesis. Note that you can't even legitimately argue lack of evidence for prior intelligence, but merely "lack of evidence that we recognize as such." Moreover, we can spot signs of intelligence in non-human species -- octopuses, or raccoons, for example. So this is not a very convincing argument.
Occam's razor points to the simplest explanation, namely that the development of life occurred via natural processes without the help of any intelligence.
That relies on the unfounded assumption that "natural processes" is in fact a simpler explanation for design, always and everywhere. In the case of dog breeds, we know that the true explanation is that humans guided the process. It's also the simplest explanation.
I have my doubts about some scientists doing so, but that's a flaw in the nature of these scientists, not in the current theory of evolution.)
Precisely. The question is: are they engaged in that evasion even now? Note, BTW, that if the theory of evolution is based on the concept of "no intelligent intervention," then it is indeed flawed, because we can (and have) falsified the claim by creating a myriad of "domestic breeds."