Replies

Thank you oh so very much for the excellent essay post!

I see that betty boop is already engaged on the entropy question, so I won't "got there" (we always agree).

The scientific answer, and IMHO the only honest answer, is: "We don't know".

The ID answer, and IMHO the dishonest answer, is: "It must be an intelligent designer."

I don't understand why it would be "dishonest" to speculate a causation. Cosmologists speculate on causations all the time and are not labeled as "dishonest".

The fundamental problem with the ID answer (and there are several) is that it automatically excludes any other possible answer.

Then wouldn't it make sense to present all possible answers? Ok, kids, here's a phenomenon we cannot yet explain, but the speculations so far are that (a) we will eventually find a natural cause for this and right now we're looking at x, y and z - or (b) it was caused by some designer, like aliens or collective consciousness or God.

I don't understand why it would be "dishonest" to speculate a causation.

Actually Alamo-Girl, you answered your own question. Quite nicely, IMHO. I may bookmark this and use your response in my own arguments (grin).

I have no problem with speculation. Indeed, you have pointed out that other scientists do this. However, I do have a problem with the statement that the cause must be by Intelligent Design. That is not speculation. It is particularly improper, IMHO, when we still cannot assert that the natural selection process is insufficient. The fact that we cannot prove that it is sufficient does not prove that it is not sufficient. We cannot prove either way.

I actually like your suggestion:

it was caused by some designer, like aliens or collective consciousness or God, or possibly natural selection is sufficient.

This approach would at least acknowledge that natural selection may be sufficient and it would also put ID on the same level as Aliens, collective consiousness and everything else.