Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: colormebemused
Your comment makes the case for the ID movement. They claim that a controversy exists and the controversy should be reported. What's wrong with that?

ID doesn't say a god, as defined by earth's religions, is responsible for the existence of life on this planet. It simply says that an intelligence was behind life being on this planet. That could be ET's uncles and cousins for all we know. The point is that the complexity of life on the earth and the amount of time allowed (roughly 5 billion) years contradict a theory of gradual change and development.

Perhaps there's another planet out there someplace where "life" originated and this life is the source of other life in the universe. Perhaps, if we were on that planet a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life would be much more obvious than it is here on earth.

The point is this. Intelligent design doesn't necessarily mean a god. Like in the second or third "Star Trek" movie, it could be some kind of "genesis project" carried on by extra-terrestrial, intelligent beings.

52 posted on 03/25/2002 5:00:00 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: xzins
The point is this. Intelligent design doesn't necessarily mean a god.

Did the intelligent beings evolve naturally? If they did, why can't we have done so? If they didn't, who created them, and how did those folks come to be? Did they evolve naturally? And so on, ad infinitum.

56 posted on 03/25/2002 5:39:20 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
ID doesn't say a god, as defined by earth's religions, is responsible for the existence of life on this planet.

You may believe that, and the proponents may be pushing that, but as I've been following creationism for a while, I've seen it evolve into Intelligent Design as a relatively more scientifically palatable way of saying "God did it."

To accept ID as purely scientific, I'd like to see evidence for it. NOT supposed lack of evidence for evolution not explaining things, but actual evidence showing ID. You advance a scientific theory by showing actual evidence for the theory, not by showing weaknesses of opposing theories. At most, that tactic can destroy the opposing theories, but will do nothing to advance yours (unless you believe ID would only accepted if there were a vacuum of theory on the subject)

At that, according to the definitions of hypothesis, theory and law, I'd say Intelligent Design is still far back at the level of hypothesis, untested and unsupported scientifically on its own.

Get some evidence and develop a real scientific theory, then you can try for equal time in the classroom.

88 posted on 03/25/2002 10:24:49 PM PST by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson