sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Intelligent Design

Subject: Intelligent Design
From: "cnctut"
Date: 1 Dec 2005 20:18:49 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.astro.amateur, sci.physics, sci.skeptic, sci.archaeology
T Wake wrote:
(some snipped for length)

> I don't for one second wish to imply that science implies there is "no"
> intelligent designer - simply that "ID" and creationism are not science.

I don't believe in my examples I've ever suggested ID was science--what
I've tried to point out by example is that certain aspects of current
"science" thought has no more claim to science than ID.

> This may change in years to come (although I doubt that). Redefining
> "science" to suit the needs of ID is a sign of its weakness. ID has inherent
> flaws in that it uses circular logic as its basis.

To that I say "show me the math." The mathematical probability that man
grew from pond scum is magnitudes smaller than an electron shadow.
Statistically, it could happen--but not as likely as my example with
the monkeys and typewriters.

> As stated elsewhere, requiring science to support your faith it a flawed
> proposal.

I don't require science to support my faith--but I find it refreshing
when it does. ;-)

>Scientific "proofs" are often overthrown and re-developed.

Yes, and many have been taught as "science."

> I am  sure most religious zealots would not appreciate this. Is the end goal 
> to
> redefine science into a religious state and then stifle its development?
> (Does this sound familiar?)

I have no end goal--other than to seek the truth. How about this
twist--assume ID is true and attempt to prove that it isn't.

Best Wishes

Tut


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>