Don’t forget that scientists don’t believe that science is about truth. A theory is the best they have.
Too bad it isn’t right.
If it were right, that would imply that it were true. Since science isn’t about truth, it can’t be right.
But I digress.....
I would still like scientists to offer some concrete evidence that life can not only arise spontaneously, but that the amount of change that they claim must have happened to account for the complexity and variety of life we see today is even feasible.
Proposing a theory, not offering any mechanism to disprove it, demanding that it be accepted unless disproved, then blowing off any attempt to do so as *religious and not scientific*, is intellectually dishonest. To determine a priori that any argument against the ToE is religious instead of scientific is as well.
Just because the ToE the only and best explanation that *science* has for a naturalistic, no-God explanation of life on earth, doesn’t mean that it’s right, or even a good one. It’s merely all they have and we don’t have to accept it as correct because there’s no better one in the wings. That’s doing the very thing that creationists are condemned for.
Proposing a theory, not offering any mechanism to disprove it, demanding that it be accepted unless disproved, then blowing off any attempt to do so as *religious and not scientific*, is intellectually dishonest. To determine a priori that any argument against the ToE is religious instead of scientific is as well.
Just because the ToE the only and best explanation that *science* has for a naturalistic, no-God explanation of life on earth, doesn’t mean that it’s right, or even a good one. It’s merely all they have and we don’t have to accept it as correct because there’s no better one in the wings. That’s doing the very thing that creationists are condemned for. ]
This logic is in-escapable.. and pure..
Should be recounted with Barry Whites voice..
and a lilting tune..
“Proposing a theory, not offering any mechanism to disprove it, demanding that it be accepted unless disproved, then blowing off any attempt to do so as *religious and not scientific*, is intellectually dishonest. To determine a priori that any argument against the ToE is religious instead of scientific is as well.”
How does one disprove ID?