Replies

Intelligent design is not defined by "big proponents." Neither are thiungs unknown or unkowable necessarily supernatural. ID is a simple concept involving the organization of matter for specific functions. It is not an inherently "supernatural" concept. If anything it is most natural, because whatever science has to investigate happens to consist of organized matter that performs specific functions. Hence it is quite possible that intelligent design is behind everything science has to investigate.

Besides, the word "supernatural" is not at all scientific in and of itself. It is an arbitrary concept, subject to change at whim. Once we understand a phenomenon, it suddenly goes from "supernatural" to "natural" but does not change essentially in the least just because we apply a different label. Is that any way to do science? No, but it is a fine way to do philosophy.

Fester! Wow I did not think you would talk to me after that blunder you pulled. Man I was mad at you for that accusation you made but like I said, I forgive you for it cause well... your philosophy line was the most fun yet.

Intelligent design is not defined by "big proponents." Neither are thiungs unknown or unkowable necessarily supernatural.

Au contraire my friend... when I say big proponents I am talking about the founders of the ID theory? Stephen Meyers, Michael Behe, William Dembsky. These guys have been writing articles and have been funded (their Discovery Institute), right? These are your founding fathers of ID theory. Why Meyer takes a lot of credit in the article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/28/do2803.xml

According to most reports, ID is a "faith-based" alternative to evolution based solely on religion. But is this accurate? As one of the architects of the theory, I know it isn't.

Seems he disagrees with you.

ID is a simple concept involving the organization of matter for specific functions. It is not an inherently "supernatural" concept. If anything it is most natural, because whatever science has to investigate happens to consist of organized matter that performs specific functions. Hence it is quite possible that intelligent design is behind everything science has to investigate.

And you accuse me of being philosophical my friend. Can you tell me what other areas of science has promoted an "unknown, unseen intelligence" as the driving force? Pele the volcano God of Hawaii matches that criteria and yet, he is a supernatural being is he not (or is he real?) You tell me.

Once we understand a phenomenon, it suddenly goes from "supernatural" to "natural"

Maybe to a caveman but not to a scientist, that is the problem. When did science ever label anything it could not explain as "supernatural"?

And like I said before, it isn't philosophical to demand evidence for a theory is it? I mean... if you were going to convict someone of a crime, would you not demand evidence or are "unknown, unseen" identities good enough?