Replies

The supposition of intervention of a higher power in the workings of nature is indeed a legitimate discussion topic, but one that belongs in the field of philosophy, not natural sciences. Biology, physics, etc. are called NATURAL sciences for a good reason - the assumption of naturalism is required in science to produce any predictable or applicable results.
Intelligent design is not just bad science, it is not science at all. Science deals with predictability and strict consequence; to say we have reduced God (aka the "Designer") to a predictable scientific entity is not only an overextension of science but an insult to religion as well, in my humble opinion.
There is already an appropriate procedure for the introduction of new scientific theories via the peer review process, and despite the "conspiracy" claims of some, traditional theories undergo challenges & adjustments in this forum all the time, within the important constraints of observed results. The problems arise when people try to sidestep the legitimate process through bad websites, inaccurate books and political pandering (this is what universally irks scientists).

Odd, but when I read
"The problems arise when people try to sidestep the legitimate process through bad websites, inaccurate books and political pandering (this is what universally irks scientists)."

My first thought was that you could substitute "Legalists" for "scientists" and explain a lot about the recent events regarding Terri Sheravo (sic).

Simply defending the process' that have come to define an institution, abandoning the purpose in order to save the structure and sense of "being special", is a disservice to both sides and all concerned.

(Sort of applies to the UN as well....)

Actually, the discussion of God very much belongs in Sciences.

I'm a Deist by the way.

Yesterday, I was looking up at the sky at dusk. As the sun melted behind the horizon it shone it's last daylight breaths on the clouds that bursted with bright yellow and oranges. Pink and Purples hazed the sky, as it slowly turned to night.

Let's say you were out for a walk and you happened upon a cave. Upon venturing in that cave, you see pictures of human forms and what appears to be bison very primitively drawn. Would you infer that a higher intelligence, say a man drew those pictures? Or would you just assume that some red and brown paint was blowing with the wind and just happened to make those pictures?

The sheer complexity of universe is beyond our human understanding. Everything comes from something. But at some point something came from nothing. The Mathematical complexity, the Golden RATIO of PHI, the symmetry, the magnitude of it all. What created this, who created this?

There are ten trillion cells in your brain, as many stars as there are in the universe. What is a thought? How do you scientifically define a thought? You can define it a very small particle of a chemical that goes through the neuron synapse as jumps from neuron to the other. But can you hold a thought in your hand?

Think of the most beautiful artwork you've ever seen. The painter had to be talented to create such a thing. Well, the universe is much more complicated than the Mona Lisa or the Sistine Chapel.

We as men, we know the formula to procreate. But can we create. Can you create a child from thin air? Can you create a single celled molecule from thin air. No you cannot. But at one point, something did.

There is a force greater than ourselves.