“Physics says that it fell or was placed at some point, based on the gravity constraints and forces applied to it at the time.”
But why should an intelligent agency be excluded from consideration? In order for a rock to be moved to its present location gravity had to be overcome, force had to be applied, work done, energy expended, each in amounts sufficient to produce the observed results. And finally the observer becomes part of the process.
Humans move and exist in a physical world, subject to gravity and energy inputs and chemical reactions that would permit them to place a rock in the road by design so I see no reason to exclude as unimportant or unscientific that possibility because intelligence may be involved.
I understand what you are saying about the ID view and its variations among adherents. That is why I am not one of them, I have no trouble with pointing to a Creator, Designer and Producer of the universe or cosmos.
And since no one has a copyright on the words, “intelligent design”, I'll use them in this sense.
[[But why should an intelligent agency be excluded from consideration?]]
Because to them - the evos- everything MUSt have come about naturally- there is no other relgion under the sun to these folks- there is no such thing as common design- similarity to them means common descent- no other explanation is allowed (despite the FACT that we know homological similarities often arise through wholly different pathways- if it ‘looks similar’ there must be an evolutionary connection- again- no other explanation allowed)
[[Humans move and exist in a physical world, subject to gravity and energy inputs and chemical reactions that would permit them to place a rock in the road by design so I see no reason to exclude as unimportant or unscientific that possibility because intelligence may be involved.]]
Exactly! a Stone mason, or someone building something may have moved then abandoned it, or an animal may have moveed it to it’s current location for all we know- but again- the possibility that an intelligence was involved is not allowed when concidering Evolution
[[I understand what you are saying about the ID view and its variations among adherents. That is why I am not one of them, I have no trouble with pointing to a Creator, Designer and Producer of the universe or cosmos.]]
Neither do I and neither do a great many ID proponents- it’s a falacious argument to insist that an opinion based o nthe evidences MUST exclude God as a possible conclusion- and when there is enough actual evidence to show a very strong need for an intelligence- which there is enough- more than enough infact- then it’s simply an unreasonable and unscientific position to insist nature must have done it- especially in light of hte fact that for nature to have done it, it would have had to violate several serious key scientific principles- Evos however just blow htis fact off, and still insist nature must have done it.
When science examines intelligently designed artifacts, they have NO problem concluding that humans were responsible- without being compelled to name the individuals- when enough evidence is present to show a serious NEED for an intelligence behind hte complexities of artifacts, it is NOT unscientific to conclude that humans were responsible without naming who the individuals were- and it’s certainly NOT unscientific, when there is enough evidence to show a serious NEED for an intelligence behind life’s irreducible complexities to suggest that an intelligent Designer was NEEDED- and hte only itnelligent Designer capable of omnipotent creation that I know of, and that a great many ID proponents and scientists know of, is God.
While some ID folks are loath to admit God is the Intelligent Designer- a good portion do infact admit htis, and have no problem doing so- but technically speaking, one need not name the intelligence no more so than one need name the intelligence behind historical artifacts in order to correctly posit that an intelligence was NEEDED!