Joined: Dec. 2006
|Quote (BWE @ Feb. 15 2012,12:02)|
|Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,09:29)|
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2012,11:10)|
|Intelligent Design, archaeology, forensics, insurance fraud all say they can determine what happens by chance and/ or necessity with what requires agency involvement.|
Of those, which has never drawn a conclusion as to the type of "agency" that was involved in any investigation?
Notice anything about that particular odd one out?
They all rely on the evidence to make any inference of the agency. And in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used is by studying the design.
Not that you would understand that...
I am very ignorant of the claims of ID and nowhere near an expert on the claims of cutting edge evolutionary science, but I am curious about the question of agency raised here. In all of those other fields, the nature of the agent is well understood and the possible actions of the possible agents are well understood. Wouldn't ID need some idea of what sort of actions an agent could make in order to be in that group?
Well, when you only have a single data point, one line drawn through it is just as good as any other...
Church burning ebola boy
FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.
PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.