Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,18:10)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,12:32)|
|Let's start small however. Describe ID in your own words.|
And on that, I simply follow normal scientific procedure in regard to how a theory (such as String or ID) can beforehand be premised then all are invited to write a theory to explain how that works. In this case "intelligent cause" must be explained, and what sums up to "Natural selection did it!" answers are not accepted.
Once you know how, it's possible to scientifically meet both requirements of the premise. And the phrase "natural selection" is such a scientific generalization that once the model is molecularly "developing" into new morphological designs comparisons to Darwinian theory sound like arm-chair philosophers (who of course never wrote one) trying to figure out what a scientific theory is, using philosophy. If you put a "hole" in the environment that some fall into and never get out of, then it's "natural selection" too. Before long pointing and parroting the same two generalizations at everything becomes annoying. Can then see why in this theory such attempts to better explain how intelligence works, are best ignored.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.