12-23-2005, 03:45 PM
Ghostiger,Dec 23 2005, 09:19 AM Wrote:Conceptually you dont seem to see the problem with Intelligent Design.Darwin had to start with an assumption to base his theory on. ID folks have a box full of underlying assumptions that they need to find evidence to support or they'll never get off of step one, which IMO is where they are.
You are saying people need to find evidense to support it. Where as Evolution grew out of direct observation. Neither situation makes one or the other right, but looking for evidense to support an idea born of metaphysics is not science(an irrational agent, one neither seen nor observered, not leaving evidense is a metaphysical agent) .
That said I dont discount the notion at all of God(and one could use aliens just as well) haveing a guiding hand or some other form of control, but its not science and shouldnt be taught in school.
[right][snapback]97889[/snapback][/right]
The best stuff I have read on it basically lies out how devolution is far more common than evolution, and arguments that show pretty well that the progressive evolution from cells to the specialized organ that is the human eye is not yet explained.
That is a Long, Long way from supporting what ID is, it is merely a discussion of what evolution isn't.
In any case, if you have a theory, you have to find evidence to support it, or find out that the evidence doesn't support it.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete