Joined: Jan. 2007
I noticed dougp59 wrote:
|why is an inference of intelligence in complex living systems here on earth not proof of an intelligent designer of that complex system?|
An inference can never be a proof, or it wouldn't be an inference then, would it?
The scientific method is not so much concerned with 'proof' as it is in accumulating evidence, such as inferences, for hypotheses which will become theories, which may eventually become 'laws', always with the understanding that new theories, new evidence, etc. can change the 'laws'.
KBC1963 has been beating this topic to death over here:
but he's not making any headway.
I suggested that to say that an ID created everything simply because everything looks like design or intelligence was just another case of Dr. Paley and the watch. It's called the Argument from Design, or the Argument from Incredulity. Yes, we may infer that intelligence or ID could be the cause of it all, but the lack of any futher real evidence is a stumbling block, to be sure.....