Posted on 08/12/2005 4:56:11 PM PDT by gobucks
Prove it. Name some, or even one, scientific inference from design in some common theory of that time. And I do mean an inference - it must be an argument in which design is an assumption and some testable, at least in principle, deduction is made. And of course the design assumption must be required in the proof.
"...germ theory, for example. Or, for balance, lets give "evil spirits make you sick theory" equal time."
Germ theory?
The "plan" of evil spirits is to make you hate yourself and those around you so you either kill the ones you hate or you commit suicide. Bad scenario either way.
An axiom is a "given." It is self-evident. It is the starting point. It is above and beyond proof unless one wishes to indulge philosophy. For whatever reason, the proponents of the philosophy of evolution have not even begun to recognize or divulge the axiom(s) under which they operate. They just plod along making inferences from physical evidence and pronouncements based on their interpretations, all the while expecting the rest of the world to bow in deference as if they were the only ones capable of doing science.
If it is not self-evident to you that the universe is intelligently designed, then what is? Furthermore, how should we expect the evidence to contradict whatever other axiom you might propose (if you would be so bold as to say what typical evolutionists refuse to recognize or acknowledge).
For evolutionists, where did the first atom come from. Don't say big bang because where did it come from?
Good one. Love it.
Your error is to assume that a theory must answer all questions. Pre-quantum chemistry had no explanation for the qualities of the chemical elements but it was a useful scientific theory nonetheless. Similarly the theory of evolution need not have an explanation for the origin of life and ID need have no explanation for the designer.
That said, ID as it is today is not a scientific theory.
Darwinian evolution has thousands and thousands of fossil records to support its claims, plus the everyday phenomena of adaptation. ID has absolutely nothing to offer as evidence.
Thus all the ID'ers can do is nitpick Darwin in a kind of pitiful rearguard action.
I will enter my sixth day of asking ID advocates for a positive statement of what they are about. Some have defined ID as saying natural selection is not sufficient to account for evolution.
But what would ID advocates teach if they had control? It takes about ten seconds to say that mainstream science has not answered every possible question. What do you do with the rest of the year?
I have yet to hear from any ID advocate about what parts of mainstream science they accept.
"The fact that evolution occurs does not mean that it is just a happenstance."
Evolution is NOT a fact! It would require numerous mutations and mutations are generally bad news.
Besides, the Bible says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; ALL THINGS WERE MADE THROUGH HIM, AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE THAT WAS MADE."
Even Sir Isaac Newton believed in Creationism.
Why would it you? You would be back to how the aliens came in to being...The question just keep going back to how did every thing(not just life but the universe) start...or more precisely what is the underlying eternal (i.e. not created but always existing) physical law/truth/logic that started everything else......
Right on!!!!!
That says it all.
I can name one, but it goes back more than 150 years. It was proven by design inference that the orbits of planets must be circular and not elliptical.
He asked for one scientific advance that rested in a meaningfull way on the axiom you stated was the basis for all science prior to 150 years ago. Should be simple enough.
But it is flying in a lot of areas now.
It remains the axiom of science to this day. Without intelligent design the first hypothesis could not even be formed in the human mind. But you did not answer my question. If it is not axiomatic that the universe is the product of intelligent design, then what other axiom might you propose to explain its existence and functions?
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.