Posted on 11/16/2005 3:40:35 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Not once have I said that I "feel" the heavens and the earth are the product of intelligent design. Not once. An inference is not just an emotion, or a feeling. It is based upon evidence, and the evidence for intelligent design consists of the organized, predictable, consistent, tangible, dynamic behavior of matter as it functions under predictble, consistent laws. Not coincidentally, when humans design machines they want all of those qualities and more to apply.
All inferences are to its maker, The Grand Designer, GOD!
You may make whatever emotional inferences you like. Just don't pretend that those emotional inferences are physical evidence.
Words mean things, after all.
Scientific thought and testing is to lead to results of truth. ID is your assumption of that truth. You mistake the begining with the end. If you are so sure that what you will find is ID then by all means present testing. Show controls and results, then explain your findings as they relate to where you began.
The point exposed is that you do not do that. That is exactly why this is for Sunday school and not academic school. Until you can present these things keep ID out of my kids biology class.
you make a claim that can only be supported by blind assumption. If you are so sure that your assumption is proper then why leave it at assumption? That question answers itself.
Inferences are made on the basis of physical evidence. The physical evidence continues to reveal, as it should, order and design.
Inferences are made on the basis of physical evidence.
Yes, but that's the beginning of science, not the end. You're stuck on Square One and think you've gone around the board.
The physical evidence continues to reveal, as it should, order and design.
Should? Should? Your bias reveals itself. You're not interested in knowledge, only reinforcing your personal cosmology. That's not science at all - it's the opposite.
Is this another one of those "arguments from incredulity?" What is it that constitutes the "legitimacy" of a scientific body? Is it the degree to which they are able to rule out the "supernatural?" Hahahahaha!
Of course it does. Have I been unclear as to what my starting assumptions are?
Matter does more than simply exist. If that were all there is to it, there would be no science.
Don't you have a cosmology? Sure you do. And I'll bet all the evidence fits it just swell.
Do you have any physical evidence to substantiate this emotional inference, or is this just another one of your "unscientific" musings?
My beliefs have changed to fit the available facts. You seem to want to work it the other way around.
Now I'll ask my question again: Why do you suppose no legitimate scientific organization (that is to say, one that has a purpose other than promoting ID) recognizes ID as science? Some global conspiracy stretching back centuries? I'd really like to know.
Words mean things, after all.
Do you have any physical evidence to substantiate this emotional inference, or is this just another one of your "unscientific" musings?
Now you're not making sense.
It is illuminating, though, that someone who calls himself a conservative has a problem with words meaning things....
No. I said it is not unreasonable, or unscientific, to infer a designer when we see something that is designed. In a good many cases we may safely assume an object is intelligently designed, and we can do so without being "unscientific." In almost every case the evidence is indirect.
Nor is it unreasonable, or unscientific, to extrapolate from there and infer a designer in cases where "nature" is organized and performs functions as complex as, or more complex than, human implements.
Most scientific organizations that you would consider "legitimate" are johnny-come-lately philosophical societies who prefer to advance a particular ideology in the name of science. The answer is: they are not legitimate scientific institutions.
Ah, I get it.
There are no scientific standards, there are no legitimate scientific institutions, and words don't mean anything.
At least I now understand where you're coming from.
Hehehe. Let's take a car over to some aboriginal tribe and set it out in the forest without their knowledge. Then, when they happen upon it, we can record their reaction and see if they are so stupid as to think it sprung up out of the ground as a product of something totally unguided, totally undesigned, totally unintelligent. Just a fluke in every day matter. Just "nature taking its course." Hahahaha!
In case you didn't notice, regularity and order are inherent in items that are intelligently designed.
It is an unscientific standard to omit the possibility of occurences in physical matter that run contrary to established physical laws. The legitimacy of scientific institutions is based chiefly upon their ability to seek and obtain accurate knowledge about the fields of study in which they are engaged. Words do indeed mean things, and must be carefully applied in expressing what may, or may not, constitute objective reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.