Posted on 02/09/2005 7:55:00 PM PST by bondserv
Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.
(Excerpt) Read more at discovery.org ...
Why aren't I on that ping-list yet? :p
(May I be added?)
You got it!
What's my problem with "intelligent design"? It's an absurd simplification... and it's plain dogmatic.
"What's my problem with "intelligent design"? It's an absurd simplification... and it's plain dogmatic."
Please, provide a reason why it's such an absurdity.
I can say "Islamic terrorists are evil" and that's the most simplified stance anyone can take. Is it absurd? In the eye of anyone with two brain cells making a synaps, I should think not.
"Simple" doesn't mean it's wrong, it means it's "simple" (as in the most likely route for nature to take)
I wouldn't go that far... but "intelligent design" is a simple explanation for complex processes. It's akin to saying that thunder and lightning is a display of god's anger.
It's absurd because it is NOT scientific. Do you believe in magic wands? I don't.
"I wouldn't go that far... but "intelligent design" is a simple explanation for complex processes. It's akin to saying that thunder and lightning is a display of god's anger."
Stating that something so complex as your nervous system came about by random chance is a "simple explanation"
It's more akin to saying thunder and lightning have a distinct way of coming about, and that it must follow that way every time for it to occur.
"It's absurd because it is NOT scientific."
I can observe that abio-genesis is impossible. That is scientific.
If we didn't come from nothing, then where did we come from?
Your assertion in a lack of the supernatural does not make it go away.
And no, I don't believe in magic wands. Do you believe in abio-genesis?
What is random anyway? The evolution is a process that started with the first aminoacids and won't end (unless life on earth ceases to exist). And there's absolutely no puppet master pulling the strings. As simple as that. Unless, of course, you can prove it. ;)
Well, I don't have a problem if people believe in angels and/or gods. I just don't like to see fairy tales being discussed in biology class.
"Do you believe in magic wands? I don't."
Boy have you messed up now! Every Harry Potter fan will be after you buddy...... :-)
"A dangerous question to ask...did you know more people believe in angels than god? "
This claim comes in part due to the fact that in places like China, Africa, and some Native American people would worship their ancestors and spirits of nature. These can be seen as "angels" to most.
By the way, if you are going to refer to God as a singular supreme being (whether you believe in Him or not) the "g" is capitalized.
(also, would you mind clarifying the second sentence? It isn't making much sense)
What? 10-year old kiddos are going to pester me? Well, as long as I don't have any Wiccan showing up at my place...
"The evolution is a process that started with the first aminoacids and won't end"
And as I pointed out, abio-genesis is impossible. Where did these amino acids come from? When did they become living? We can't reproduce it in any "naturalistic" environment.
IF we ever create life, it's going to envolve ALOT of engineering, which would still support my claim to ID.
It is less for me to prove ID, more for you to prove a random event can cause life.
Evolution happens. On what scale we can debate all day. My purpose on this thread is to advocate ID, which you cannot hope to counter with anything scientific, because science doesn't disagree with it! ScienTISTS may, but they are human and subject to folly.
Excellent! Thanks for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.