Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,14:41)|
|Actually you had me at|
|From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework |
as of course there has never been such a thing.
|not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm. |
This is all fine. Convince me.
To show that this is just something new to you, but not everyone else everywhere, here's a topic of mine from Tue Apr 08, 2008 titled "I seriously think I found the Design Theory" that got the theory project started:
There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so. It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums. Years later I'm here, with what it became because of having a framework that works great with the peer-review process all are used to. I often compared it to a peer-review inference engine, where scientists line up their replies that can't help but make the theory even better because of what they contain for information, that only needs proper digesting into new knowledge from the old.
Seeing the theory slowly reveal itself was quite a thrill for those who were fully in on it. In my opinion, that's what most convinces a scientist that it's the real thing. Doesn't need God in the gaps arguments to support itself, at all. In fact, that's what makes it scientifically unstoppable. Worse you can do to it, is help make it stronger.
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.