Replies

It is good to know that you and I are at least agreed that science requires both design and intelligence, and that both exist in our universe. Of course it gets trickier as we proceed from there.

. . . when you infer something, it is normally based on facts and knowledge.

Okay. Both evolutionists and creationists make inferences based on the facts and knowledge that 1.) the universe exists, and 2.) it has design. From these two facts, is it totally crazy or unreasonable to infer the existence of intelligence? No. Both parties will admit to the existence of intelligence also.

Now, based on the sheer amount of design and intelligence that exists in the known universe, I do not think - based on these facts - it is crazy or unreasonable to infer that a greater intelligence brought it about and sustains it. That does not mean I must necessarily make this inference shape my observations. No. All those simple observations can be made easily, even without tools to observe the universe more closely.

The remarkable thing is, the more effective the tools of observation become, the more evidence is revealed to show design and intelligence. The inferences made by those who adhere to creation theory do not effect the amount of design or intelligence available for all to see, but they do indeed have consequences when they play themselves out in life's other discplines.

"When the process is NOT understood, the easiest way to get out of it, is to say, a miracle happened, or godidit, or it MUST have been intelligent design. . .

. . .or evolution did it." I don't think creationists have cornered the market on intellectual laziness. Both disciplines have convenient ways of dismissing evidence that counters their presuppositions.

BTW. You lost me on that math equation (even when simply put). If you could lay it out with a little more explanation I might be able to consider where you are going with this and how it effects my arguments. Thanks.

Sorry Fester, but word games will not convince me of intelligent design.

Intelligent design was created by a lazy scientist, latched onto by creationists as a way to get into science curriculum, and then decided that it was a competitive theory to Evolution.

Sorry, it is NOT science, therefore it is not a competitive theory to evolution.

When you say intelligent designer, or god, or whatever you want to call the designer or whatever, it goes out of the realm of science and into the realm of religion.

End of story.

Evolution is scientific, fossils, DNA evidence, biology etc proves it every day, more and more. Not less and less as G3K and a few others like to claim here.

Intelligent design CANNOT be proven scientifically, this is NOT a philosophy thread, this is not a religious thread, as you all seem to think.

This is about science, PURE and not so simple.