Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,12:54)|
|Zardoz, what you are describing are personal beliefs. But there is a difference in personal beliefs and what constitutes science. The issue is the scientific community does not want personal theistsic beliefs being promoted as science.|
In over 10 years the intelligent design folks have yet to provide a shred of testable theory or anything scientific.
And to say "hey look at this evidence of design" is not science. Besides, the so called evidence they provide is simply wrong.
Furthermore, saying it could be a space alien or time traveler is not scientific either. It's voodoo. We have no evidence of a space alien or time travelers, so to suggest these imaginary constructs are responsible for shiny objects we see in biology is nonsense.
And until they can produce a space alien or time traveler (or God) and demonstrate how they go about creating, their ID theory will remain unscientific. They might as well say "shiny objects in biology are the reult of wiggly-pigglys" since there is as much evidence for wiggly-pigglyes as there is for Klingons, time travelers and space aliens.
Now there is nothing wrong with theorizing Klingons dunnit, but to suggest that theory is scientific and should be taught in science class is quackery.
And I am sympathetic to the crowd that wants to find God in a petri dish, but if that discovery is ever made it will not likely come from the ID crowd. So far all the ID "scientists" are either bad philosophers, lawyers, or blind quacks like M Behe.
What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things?
You mention magical entities as not being a sophisticated enough explanation for life on earth. But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.
Also is it really plausible that evolutionary theory can account for the percentage of artistic precision, color coordination, and symmetrically beautiful shapes found in nature? Almost every life form that we can see with our unaided eye is confounding chance by being artistically phenomenal. Why isn't the overwhelming attribute of the living world utilitarian and drab? Why is art the rule rather then the exception? Magic? What did Arthur C. Clarke say about magic?
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey