Which one?
ah yes, again with the “which one”.
you really need to get something better than that.
I’ve been blowing off a similar “which morality is correct” argument from libs for a long time.
Your point would be that if an argument can’t be made for some specific Creator, there must not be one.
Where’d ya pick that tactic up? Some lefthanded circle jerk?
It frankly is a shame that evolution/creation/ID can’t be discussed at this forum without it always degenerating into name-calling and a whole bunch of smoke.
Jim fixed that by getting rid of most of the scientists, although a few remain for now.
ID isn’t science. It certainly isn’t a “theory” in the scientific sense. It’s a philosophical argument that wants to pretend to non-scientists that it’s a scientific explanation.
It doesn’t work that way, but for those who are predisposed to believe the outcome and hope for support later, it’s quite appealing.
I’m not even sure it’s an argument worth having, because the ID side doesn’t want to talk about evidence, except to attempt to poke holes in the evolutionary side of things. It offers no coherent, testable evidence on its side at all, except that “this is so special, it must have been designed.” You can’t even begin to argue with that logic, must less test it.
This movie will play to the crowd who thinks it somehow refutes science. It even blames Darwin for the Holocaust. You gotta throw Hitler into any insult in order to really prove a point, I guess.
It’s utter tripe. I’m sure it will get rave reviews here because it reinforces beliefs. It will not change any.