Replies

So what scientist said that the universe and life doesn’t appear to be designed? Names? One seemed to ‘hate’ the anthropic principle based on emotion but that really leaves no sound basis for his emotion to begin with… He could hate pasta but does pasta exist? (I am not arguing the pasta principle though…)

Yet science rejects design with emotional passion?

And again you say it doesn’t matter and we should just pick…
‘Current’ science only adheres to unintelligent, purposeless forces. Your article only shows from some the rejection of evidence regardless of evidence. (though I did not see where anyone rejected that the universe appears to be designed)

If science is going to be based on:
1. unintelligent, purposeless forces.
2. Impartial investigation.

What does science ‘assume’ when the two go opposite ways?

BTW- Thanks for the article…

So what scientist said that the universe and life doesn’t appear to be designed?

I don't have a list of names. Even if I did, it wouldn't be persuasive to either of us. Maybe Physicist can give you some names.

And again you say it doesn’t matter and we should just pick…

No. I haven't said it doesn't matter. The last time you claimed that was my position, I attempted to clarify things. In post 328 I said: " It's important. Today it seems scientifically unanswerable. I'd like to know, but there's not enough information. So you may as well pick the answer that makes you happy."

If science is going to be based on: 1. unintelligent, purposeless forces.

Those adjectives are your own. Science is based on verifiable data. Surely you know this. When the data runs out, speculation begins. But that's not solid science.