Posted on 12/18/2001 5:07:16 PM PST by Map Kernow
There are holes in the evolutionary theory. Period. While remaining a theory, other avenues should be explored, one of which is intelligent design. Those choosing to explore this avenue should not be belittled because they are thinking out of the "scientific" box.
Beep. Circle takes the square. Science says, by definition, the supernatural is untestable (if it was testable, it would be natural). It does not say the supernatural is impossible -- in general it has very little to say in regard to the supernatural.
It has a lot to say ABOUT those who choose to believe in the supernatural. If one chooses to explore intelligent design, even if from a scientific background, that person is then written off. You need only look at some of the posts around FR to see that no respect is paid to those who choose to explore this theory, by those in the scientific community. There is only hostility.
Individual events are not predictable in quantum mechanics. Events are predictable only in a statistical manner, but they are very predictable. QED is the most accurate theory ever devised. It has been tested out to 15 decimal places and found to be a correct description of the world. Unfortunately, the quantum world does not behave in a classical manner. Quantum theory predicts strange and seemingly illogical events. But when the theory predicts, and measurements prove, that an electron can be in two places at once, what are you going to do? Reject what you see?
Maybe the creator just is.
Maybe the universe just is.
Would that prove the unproveable?
I'm either insane, lying to you or God has spoken to me.
I can't prove His existence to you, but he proved His existence to me.
No, it doesn't. Logic demands better formulation.
.Just because the theory of evolution has holes it cannot be rejected. Consider it incomplete, like many other scientific theories.
Intelligent Design is a fancy way of saying, “Gee, I don’t understand. It must be magic.” It is not “out of the box”, it rejects the basic tenets of science and replaces them with the supernatural
“I don’t understand, therefore, He Is.” is not science. It's magic.
(I’m not hostile to anyone who wants to explore I.D., just don’t call it science.)
It doesn't have to be rejected. But evidence shouldn't be studied as a means to an end. Otherwise, the evidence will lead in the direction presupposed every time.
Intelligent Design is a fancy way of saying, “Gee, I don’t understand. It must be magic.”
That statement is exactly the condescending attitude I'm referring to. Maybe it's not that they don't understand it. Maybe because of the holes they simply CHOOSE to reject it, or simply explore other areas. Maybe in their minds ID makes more sense than evolution. If they have the same credentials it makes them no less intelligent!
How is this of interest for those studying ID?
Provides a wonderful glimpse inside the designer's "mind", yes? Provides another "hole" for evolutionists to fill also.
Gotta run, now...
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
...Like dreaming up evolutionary plots.....
You, of course, are also nowhere near explaining the origins of all this "something" surrounding us. I suppose you'll want to do that before casting stones....
No one is stopping anyone from researching Intelligent Design. There is no Grand Conspiracy Against God™. All legitimate science requires is proof* to back up one's assertions and an opportunity for peer review. It does no researcher any good to argue his theory in the public rather than the scientific domain, as that strategy is typically indicative of a theory that will not stand up to scrutiny.
*This proof must at least indicate the presence of an Intelligent Designer and may not be explained by more mundane mechanisms. So far, nothing has been presented that cannot be explained by those mundane mechanisms. If you have such evidence, you are in line for a Nobel prize, my friend.
You can believe in it if you wish, but don't go expecting science to pay it any more heed than the creation myths of a thousand other mythologies.
Never claimed I was.
No. The experience is completely subjective and not given to proof. Now, if God left you a piece of physical evidence (a burning bush that was not consumed by fire, for instance) then you have evidence.
I'm either insane, lying to you or God has spoken to me.
How about "none of the above." You may have suffered an audio or visual hallucination while having a "religious moment." The Readers' Digest December issue discusses the theory that the human brain is hardwired to believe in God, and that religious rapture (that "rapture" with a small 'r') can actually be medically observed.
I can't prove His existence to you, but he proved His existence to me.
And that is why it is purely subjective and not given to scientific study.
is a category fallacy that is like asking how many inches your Christmas turkey weighs. God is not an event, or any other contingent thing, and since God (by definition) is not contingent, God must be either necessary or impossible.
Cordially,
I like your line of philosphical reasoning. By the way for any who read through this thread I must acknowlegde I borrowed most of my ideas from philospher R.C. Sproul and and astrophycisist Dr Hugh Ross. Don't ask me why I'm telling anyone this besides I don't want to take "credit for anyone else's intellectual acheivements. In the future I will reference sources.
As I said earlier, convenient, but unsatisfying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.