|
|
|
|
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/19/2008 7:59:00 AM | I am looking forward to watching the movie.
Science and religion can be compatible when religion is equated to: the laws of nature. This is one of the reason why I love buddhism, because it is compatible with science. Consciousness can grow, in other words: it evolves.
An a-critical religion based on blind faith will always have problems with science.
The means of science need to be 'ethical', in my opinion. You can have an 'ethics' without believing in God.
| |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/19/2008 9:32:39 AM |
So you have some proof that Creationist Scientists are not discriminated against as per the movie? You call it absurd but don't back it up with any reasoning and ignore clear cut cases where it did happen.
There is actually very little evidence that the people interviewed in the movie were discriminated because of their belief in creationism. In fact, most of them didn't even lose their jobs, but were simply denied tenure, or reprimanded. And there were all sorts of other reasons for this besides creationism.
However, I will insist that discriminating someone based upon their belief in creationism in an academic field is totally warranted, as warranted as being discriminate when it comes to hiring or firing mathematicians who believe 2 and 2 make 5. Whether someone working in a scientific field holds a demonstrably false and unsupported belief is totally relevant to their position.
If I were fired from my job at a publishing place because I consistently mispelled words, it would be silly to argue that they are only "discriminating" against people who speak in internet acronyms. And this is essentially what the creationist whine amounts to. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/19/2008 8:48:16 PM |
If I were fired from my job at a publishing place because I consistently mispelled words, it would be silly to argue that they are only "discriminating" against people who speak in internet acronyms. And this is essentially what the creationist whine amounts to.
Your analogy misses the mark. If you fulfilled the job requirements in the same way as your peers but then was fired because you believe television is a better medium then print, it would be more in line with the documentary's message. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/19/2008 9:08:52 PM | | More like being a typesetter who looks for ways to do his job while refusing to believe in the printing press. Since the job is pretty easy when all the tools and facts are right in front of him, ignoring that is willfull incompetence. Even worse, "solving" the problem by sprinkling it with pixie dust is pure idiocy. There is both correlation and causation between the printing press and the printed word. There is neither between pixie dust and the printed word. Just try to show pixies exist, much less pixie dust or its influence. Yet this is what ID advocates like to claim: an unseen and unsupportable cause with neither a correlation nor causal link with the result, and a denial of that which has both unrefuted correlation AND causation. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/19/2008 10:42:35 PM |
Your analogy misses the mark. If you fulfilled the job requirements in the same way as your peers but then was fired because you believe television is a better medium then print, it would be more in line with the documentary's message.
Sure, that would be more in line with the documentary's message, but their message is totally wrong and based on willful ignorance. For instance, their insistence that believe in evolution entails atheism is off the mark, and shows why they didn't interview well-known Christian defenders of evolution (and harsh critics of creationism) like Kenneth Miller. It is also telling that they had to lie to their interview subjects about the type of film they were making, so as to prevent them from actually addressing their argument.
Believing in Intelligent Design as a scientist is like believing in the stork as a health teacher. The belief is directly relevant to your job performance, the integrity of the educational institution employing you, and so on. It's a wonder that they weren't all immediately fired, but in fact almost all of them are still in the same position! What terrible discrimination they face. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/19/2008 10:57:28 PM | One more thing about this film: not only are all of its claims a bunch of bogus hogwash, but its claims are irrelevant bogus hogwash!
Let's say their argument is correct, and evolution caused the holocaust, rapes children, and eats puppies. Does this mean evolution is false? Not at all. Consider atomic theory. This led to the creation of atom bombs and the destruction of untold lives, as well as an uncertain future for the whole of our civilization. Does this negative consequence of our knowledge mean it is false? Not at all. To the contrary, it just goes to show how very real it is.
Honestly, this is the most piss-poor criticism of evolution I've ever seen. (And I'm including the criticisms I've encountered here on POF, which often encompass a degree of stupidity that seems impossible to exceed!) | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/19/2008 11:03:55 PM | Perhaps a better analogy would be someone who refuses to do their job, such as by refusing to use established methods that are proven to work, then playing the prejudice card when they get fired for not doing their work.
The film is aptly named. No Intelligence was Allowed in the making of that movie. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/19/2008 11:17:03 PM |
You're right! I googled it and that's what it said
Good job, Chuck!
You know I wouldn't be surprised if this was in fact true!
So that makes it ok for other types of discrimination?
I didn't say that, I responded to this absurd statement
In this world you cannot be discriminated against for anything other then questioning whether we really are the most intelligent thing in the Universe.
So I showed that not only CAN you, but it has happened and is currently happening.
Actually I didn't call you anything. I labeled some comments and from Psychology 101 pointed out what is normally at the root of that type of thinking.
The hallmarks of close mindedness and the very foundation for discrimination, bigotry and hate as well as a fair representation of the mindset in the halls of academia today.
Thank you gentlemen for the demonstration.
1. You implied we were acting in such a manner.
2. Maybe you should have taken a higher level psych course, because you misapplied your defense mechanisms.
So you have some proof that Creationist Scientists are not discriminated against as per the movie? You call it absurd but don't back it up with any reasoning and ignore clear cut cases where it did happen.
They're given the same opportunities to produce peer reviewed journals as anybody else. It's not the journals fault that they simply can't produce meaningful scientific documents. Some of them have in fact been published when making scientific observations of other issues. The reality is that every single creationist theory has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese.
You'll find that flat earthers and HIV denialists recieve the same sort of discrimination. It's the discrimination one receives in the scientific community when you're simply wrong.
I think the word you're looking for is "Judgement by merit" rather than discrimination. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/20/2008 9:27:01 AM | He lost me when he criticized Darwin for failing to explain gravity - the first thing to do if you expect to have any credibility, is to understand the difference between biology and physics.
Then, maybe try to sort out the difference btween the theory of natural selection which is a predictive scientific theory, and social Darwinism, which is pseudo-scientific political construct favored, oddly enough, most often by people who think god is on their side. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/20/2008 11:37:17 AM | What bothers me about this film is that it will more than likely give way to help strengthen Intelligent Design advocators in their argument that creationism should be side-by-side with other evidential science facts. Even though this film is based solely on false discriminatory claims.
By "false discriminatory claims", I mean this :
The science community argues that Intelligent Design is not science. And they're absolutely correct. In order for anything to fall into the scientific study category, it has to be able to fall into scientific methods.
Scientific methods/steps being :
1. The idea of a theory based on observation (ID has this first step covered), but that's where ID stops at this point.
The science method then goes on to further steps :
2. Said observations must then be physically testable (mathematically, in a lab, out in the field, etc etc)
3. Then those tests must be again, tested by several other peers in the science field in order to varify that said tests are based on unbiased observations. Scientists have a tendency to attempt to disprove a theory.... and not the other way around. It has to be this way in order to maintain the respectability of science study.
4. At this point, if the theory fails any of the first steps, it will be criticised by the science community and tossed to the side as 'not science'.
5. The theory will then go back to square one, and whomever came up with the theory must then continue with new tests in order to try and accomplish provable evidences.
6. And if over a span of time, the theorist cannot succeed, the science community will brush it off as hogwash.
And THAT is how science works. If you cannot fall into those steps, your theory is NOT science and will NOT be taken seriously in terms of allowing that particular research any grants, monies, facility usage, equipment for field study, etc.
It will not be allowed in published science journals, it will not be allowed to be taught in school systems, and so forth.
If anyone and everyone were allowed to label a belief/theory/idea as 'science' based solely on the fact that the idea is there in the first place but possesses no evidential proof, the world of science would be one big fat joke. A group of people could believe that pink unicorns exist.... should science allow financial grants and usage of facilities and faculty staff ? Should time and money to be allowed to be sucked up ? Even though they are unable to physically prove it year after year after year ? Should science continue to allow them their field of study just to patronize people's belief/theory/idea ?
No they shouldn't, and they don't. You will be given some allowance at first, but if you can't prove anything.... your allowance is cut off. At that point, you're on your own to prove said theory. And this is the point that Intelligent Design now falls.... advocates for this theory are on their own to try and prove it.... science will no longer give it credence or money or time or effort. Period.
Just because a group of people have a theory, does not make it 'science'. Just because one book claims said theory and a group of people believe it, does not make it 'science'.
There are people who believe that Elvis lives.... but until those people can come up with actual physical evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Elvis actually does live.... it will not be given credence.
These methods of science have worked for decades/centuries.... why change the rules now just because of pressure from special interest groups ?
Science has my respect just because of that.... It refuses to sway from general practice even if a huge group of people tell them they should.
Three cheers for the scientific method !!!
 | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/20/2008 12:38:14 PM | | ^^^ So you are suggesting that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism shouldn't be taught in schools either? But pirates do cause global warming! There's a graph on the internet showing this. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/20/2008 12:49:14 PM | ^^^^^ Well apparently if enough people believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory, we have the right to demand that it be called 'science' and it should be an optional course in the science department of academic curriculums.
As for the pirate theory.... how many people believe this ? Are there any books on it ? If all are applicable, then I say we should toss that one into the mix too !!
No need to follow any scientific methods, no need to come up with any physical evidences.... because if enough people believe it and somewhere someone wrote about it, then isn't that evidence in and of itself ?!
Otherwise the science community is being intolerant and discriminatory.
 | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/21/2008 10:19:56 PM | Posted by AncientMuse
The science community argues that Intelligent Design is not science. And they're absolutely correct. In order for anything to fall into the scientific study category, it has to be able to fall into scientific methods.
By your example you imply that archeology and SETI are not sciences since they also search for intelligent design. If we through scientific testing can determine that a rock or radio signals from space can have been a result of Intelligent Design, how much more so should we be able to do so for the human body or all the other forms of life that exist on this planet. If we cannot, that says something about the limitations of scientists rather then of the scientific method. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/21/2008 10:29:07 PM |
By your example you imply that archeology and SETI are not sciences since they also search for intelligent design. If we through scientific testing can determine that a rock or radio signals from space can have been a result of Intelligent Design, how much more so should we be able to do so for the human body or all the other forms of life that exist on this planet. If we cannot, that says something about the limitations of scientists rather then of the scientific method.
I'd really, really like to see how you can explain the above strawman before Muse takes you to task for it...
How, precisely does she imply SETI or archaeology search for intelligent design???
I'll wait.
More to the point, I am wondering why that chickensh*t Stein didn't let Kenneth Miller anywhere near his movie? Could it be the thought of a devoutly Christian PhD scientist with expertise in cellular biology that has blown all of the ridiculous claims of ID out of the water in numerous public lectures somewhat disturbing? Perhaps easier to run ambush style journalism on unsuspecting participants unaware of the actual nature of the sting...er "documentary"?
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/index.html
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/ | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/21/2008 10:47:23 PM |
archeology and SETI are not sciences since they also search for intelligent design
I think I'll join themadfiddler on the couch and wait for this one too.
Hmmm archeology and SETI are the searches for ID.... should be interesting to hear where e.kyro's thought process is coming from.
... but e.kyro, I definately give you credit for some great creativity on your part
| |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/21/2008 11:19:37 PM | Oh and another thing I forgot to mention.....
SETI is privately funded. NASA cut them off years ago due to lack of evidential proof.... what a bunch of discriminating scientists they are. Sheesh.
.... I'll sit back on the couch now and continue waiting. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/22/2008 7:47:37 AM |
Posted by AncientMuse
Hmmm archeology and SETI are the searches for ID.... should be interesting to hear where e.kyro's thought process is coming from.
You made the claim that ID does not conform to the scientific method, so prove it. Archeology looks at a rock or other artifact and uses the scientific method to determine if its shape or existence is as a result of an intelligent designer. SETI studies radio signals received from space in an attempt to discern if the signals were intelligently designed or are as a result of naturally occurring phenomena. Forensics is a science that is often called upon to determine whether a someone died of natural causes or an outside agency.
Prove how these sciences are capable of using the scientific method to detect intelligence but when ID is studying the genome and DNA, it isn't applicable.
SETI is privately funded. NASA cut them off years ago due to lack of evidential proof.... what a bunch of discriminating scientists they are. Sheesh.
From http://www.seti.org/csc/index.php
"Carl Sagan Center Funding
Nearly all Life in the Universe scientists generate their own funding through outside grants, usually from NASA or the National Science Foundation."
I think I'll join themadfiddler on the couch and wait for this one too.
Hmm, he strikes me as a codependent older brother, jumping in to direct the debating process and attempting to prevent potential problems. Hopefully he has enough faith in you to allow you to answer for yourself. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/22/2008 8:31:48 AM | | Ben Stein... I loved him in "Win Ben Stein's Money." He is very intelligent and well-read. That he is a driving force behind such shameless propaganda just shows me how compartmentalized the mind can become: facts and logic on one side/dogma and gullibility on the other. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/22/2008 10:49:05 AM |
You made the claim that ID does not conform to the scientific method, so prove it. Archeology looks at a rock or other artifact and uses the scientific method to determine if its shape or existence is as a result of an intelligent designer. SETI studies radio signals received from space in an attempt to discern if the signals were intelligently designed or are as a result of naturally occurring phenomena. Forensics is a science that is often called upon to determine whether a someone died of natural causes or an outside agency.
Prove how these sciences are capable of using the scientific method to detect intelligence but when ID is studying the genome and DNA, it isn't applicable.
I still don't understand where you get this idea that archaeology and SETI are the search for intelligent design ??? How do they relate to intelligent design ??? You need to explain this one, e.kyro.
Archaeology follows the scientific method quite obviously. You have physical goods in your hand that can run through a gambit of tests in order to determine it's age.... you can physically dig up a water jug and the artestry/design of it can tell you what cultural influences it belonged to...... the list goes on and on, e.kyro. Archeology is the study of human culture & history via rocks, bones, buildings, cultural artifacts, etc etc. Please explain where intelligent design falls into this one !? Are you confusing archaeology with something else ??
From http://www.seti.org/csc/index.php
"Carl Sagan Center Funding
Nearly all Life in the Universe scientists generate their own funding through outside grants, usually from NASA or the National Science Foundation."
SETI is privately funded, thus it receives no publicly/government funded (NASA being one of them) grants in order to continue its studies. The research continues because of bored rich folk who want to blow their money(s) on something that they feel is worthy. A percentage of scientists help to support this program (via man hours) because most astrophysicists/astronomers/cosmologists agree that there must be other forms of life in the universe due to mathematical probabilities and commonly known testable evidences of how lifeforms propagate in the universe, our own existence being one of them. People in the privacy of their own homes even volunteer their time to help in the search via computer generated programs searching for signals in the sky - it's called SETI@home.
SETI is the study and search for alien intelligent lifeforms. How do you equate aliens with ID ??? And guess what, even SETI follows further into the scientific method than ID...... How, you say ? Well, let me spell it out for you : Radio spectrum. Actual physical radio spectrum.
Perhaps intelligent design advocates should send out radio signals to see if god is signalling back.... why are creationists only utilizing a book as their evidence ? Why aren't they attempting actual various time-proven testing methods ?
If intelligent design advocates want to 'scientifically' study it and find some evidentiary proofs to back up its theory, then how about you establish your own foundation and facilities, and get followers to donate their monies to keep it running ? The Ben Steins of the world can put their money where their mouth is. Simple solution, no ? SETI does exactly that, so why can't ID ? And once your physical/testable proofs are in, you can then argue that it should be taught in acadamia. Note: SETI is not taught as a science in schools/colleges because it does not qualify for obvious reasons.
I think I'll join themadfiddler on the couch and wait for this one too. Hmm, he strikes me as a codependent older brother, jumping in to direct the debating process and attempting to prevent potential problems. Hopefully he has enough faith in you to allow you to answer for yourself.
This childish asinine statement doesn't even deserve a response, e.kyro. Pathetically obvious.
Still waiting for you to explain how archaeology and SETI are the studies into Intelligent Design. Are you dancing around to avoid answering this ?
Perhaps you can also explain how intelligent design deserves scientific merit by how it falls into the scientific method.... Note : a book, people's beliefs, and what someone feels in their heart does not fall into the scientific method.... You can study DNA and genomes all you want, but without actual formulation and testable proofs that they spontaneously appeared out of magic, ID still doesn't qualify as science study. So you need to justify the discrimination here.
Back to the couch I go. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/22/2008 11:00:32 AM |
Hmm, he strikes me as a codependent older brother, jumping in to direct the debating process and attempting to prevent potential problems. Hopefully he has enough faith in you to allow you to answer for yourself.
Argue the point, not the person. Still waiting for it by the way...that cogent argument that isn't a pant load of bollocks.
| |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/22/2008 10:24:24 PM | I too, enjoyed Win Ben Stein's Money and assumed Stein was smart, or at least educated.
This movie is a stunner. The attempt to hang Nazism on Darwin's neck is mind-boggling. Stein's ignorance of history....oh my god.
Nazi theory I think can be fairly stated as having come from the church -- Lutheran and Catholic. Martin Luther (Heinrich Himmler was a fan) wrote in On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) things like (quoting wikipedia):
In the treatise, Luther writes that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[1] They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine,"[2] and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[3] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[4] afforded no legal protection,[5] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[6] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them."[7]
According to one historian, "just about every anti-Jewish book printed in the Third Reich contained references to and quotations from Luther." | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/22/2008 10:41:13 PM | How about this:
On September 7th, the game Spore will come out.
When it does, people will realize that evolution makes immense amounts of sense.
It is not just biological. It is a universal thing.
The thoughts of christians have evolved over time, from being lovers of the wisdom of Yeshua to being worshippers of the divinity of Christ.
Nothing is safe from the universal laws of the universe. Gravity isn't just physical. Male and Female isn't just in sex. Heck, the very nature of duality and singularity is a universal concept group that cannot be defied in any known example within this universe, as far as I know.
It is through these universal laws that things like SETI get their estimates. It is through these universal laws that you're about to type a response to my nearly-finished rant.
And why the flipping F*CK can't the progenitor of these universal laws themselves be none other than God?
I mean come on... Evolution as a way to keep oneself from always needing to work on life forms? Talk about an intelligent design!!
Your hypocrisy is so thick I could cut through it with a knife, and yet you would gladly breathe this fetid air that now surrounds you, instead of blowing it away and seeing clearly that you are not always right!
~ David | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/23/2008 12:27:29 AM | I hate to be rude, Mr Kyro, or if I may call you E.
But what you're saying makes no sense. You're really stretching the concept of "intelligent design" to include the notion of "anything that ever happened or could be done by any agency or person".
Forensics? Achaeology? SETI? As previously stated these things involve... yes, as you said... looking for things that suggest "human origin". But they're also physically tangible objects, and the things that show them having human origin can't be explained other ways.
You're kind of right about SETI. There's no evidence. None at all. Which means it fails as a scientific theory. Which is fine because SETI isn't a scientific theory. It's just an experiment to gather data. Granted, not a very good one, purely because it isn't possible (currently) to do it better. But nevertheless valid.
I don't have a problem with people believing in God. I really don't. The whole concept that Evolution is the same as Atheism is stupid, and deliberately polarising and emotive. It strikes fear into the hearts of the Bible Belt of America, which, by the way, is about the last bastion of Creationism in the world. I have no need to kill God. I don't believe in him but you may. If you wish to believe that Evolution was started or directed by God, or that his will caused it, or that it was the mechanism he used to create the world we have now... fine.
Please, feel free. But when you start hurting science, hurting learning, then you're hurting us as a species, and that I cannot tolerate. By trying to push ID into schools you lessen us. Intelligent Design is not science. It is false and dishonest.
If ID proponents expect to be taken seriously they should stop making whiney films and start getting some actual evidence for their theory. I've never seen any decent evidence for ID. Ever.
I don't expect to see proof. I'm too "scientific" for that. You don't have to "prove" Intelligent Design for me (and the scientific community) to allow it to be seen as a viable theory. But you have to provide some, any, evidence.
This movie (which I look forward to seeing and shredding) takes an agenda that is wrong and further clouds the issue. Scientists espousing Intelligent Design are not real scientists. There's a mountain of evidence to show Evolution as fact. And there's absolutely none in support of ID. (By none I fail to include the unsubstantiated nonsense ID proponents trot out, like fossilised teddy bears and gaps in the fossil record.)
BTW, someone mentioned HIV Deniers above, along with flat earthers. I've never heard of that. What's the deal there? They deny it's real, or what? | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/23/2008 5:55:52 AM | Posted by AncientMuse
Archaeology follows the scientific method quite obviously. You have physical goods in your hand that can run through a gambit of tests in order to determine it's age.... you can physically dig up a water jug and the artestry/design of it can tell you what cultural influences it belonged to...... the list goes on and on, e.kyro. Archeology is the study of human culture & history via rocks, bones, buildings, cultural artifacts, etc etc. Please explain where intelligent design falls into this one !? Are you confusing archaeology with something else ??
Were not all those things brought about by intelligent designers? Do Archaeologists dig and study sites where there is no sign of intelligently designed artifacts? Of course not. When they study these sites they use the intelligently designed artifacts to determine the level of intelligence, technological advancement, degree of civilization, type of thinking, language, etc. to get an idea of the intelligence that created the artifacts.
SETI attempts to find extraterrestrial clues in an attempt to find evidence for intelligent life. The clues they look for are things which show signs of having been intelligently designed, ie radio waves with patterns broadcasting on a narrow beam indicating a purpose built transmitter, etc.
The greater the degree of complexity of the artifact in question, the greater the likelihood
that it is the result of an intelligent designer especially if the object in question has an easily recognizable purpose like pottery, hieroglyphics or a Klingon soundtrack from star system 9X.
The greatest degree of complexity and purpose is biological systems. If the scientific method can be used on a piece of flint that looks like an arrow head to determine ID, then where is the rationality that scientific method cannot be used for biology? Where is the justification to automatically assume that the evolution of life forms is the result of naturalistic causes? To not test for ID, smacks of a faith-based dogma.
ID does not attempt to discern whether the Designer is God or Dawkin's alien seeders, but simply whether there were intelligent forces at work to bring about life with all its diversity, on this planet. ID is testable, makes predictions and is falsifiable and therefore has the required characteristics to qualify it for the scientific model.
Perhaps you can also explain how intelligent design deserves scientific merit by how it falls into the scientific method.... Note : a book, people's beliefs, and what someone feels in their heart does not fall into the scientific method.... You can study DNA and genomes all you want, but without actual formulation and testable proofs that they spontaneously appeared out of magic, ID still doesn't qualify as science study. So you need to justify the discrimination here.
Spontaneously appearing by magic (or seeded by aliens, or on crystals, or by lightening on mud puddles) still qualifies naturalistic evolution, so why does it disqualify ID?
My turn on the couch. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/23/2008 9:55:07 AM |
The greatest degree of complexity and purpose is biological systems. If the scientific method can be used on a piece of flint that looks like an arrow head to determine ID, then where is the rationality that scientific method cannot be used for biology? Where is the justification to automatically assume that the evolution of life forms is the result of naturalistic causes? To not test for ID, smacks of a faith-based dogma.
What I was trying to say before I cruelly deleted myself and multiplied Mr Kyro in an effort to correct a double post, is that human artifacts are not like biological systems. The latter are self perpetuating evolved structures and are therefore not in any obvious need of a designer.
How do you test for ID in biological systems, beyond the stage of lazily scratching your head at any difficulties and concluding that "God did it"? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
