Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (Quack @ Nov. 14 2012,02:11)|
| Now all you have to do is present to me a "Natural Selector" deity of some stature, then I will accept your theory as being a scientific theory.|
Differential reproducitve success is a natural selector.
So are meandering rivers as well - why don't they run the shortest course down? So much is evidently going on in naturewithout even a hint of anybody having his hands there. Nature is not the impotent, sterile matter you have in mind.
Nature's ways are mysterious and it is our task to untangle that web. We got a looong way to go yet, we are not at science's end; we are in the midst of a veritable paradigm shift that I sense you are not aware of.
At each level from the bottom up things appear that we couldn't predict no matter what knowledge we might have about the underlying layer.
But you got your head up in the stratosphere, I live down here. Maybe you went astray somewhere along the road? El-shock therapy might be a good idea.
And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.
Your point is now what? That you cannot accept that as making scientific sense because your scientific method requires a deity of some stature in a scientific theory for you to accept it as scientific?
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.