To: Fester Chugabrew
"The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predicatable laws is indeed scientifically testable."
And is just as much evidence for unintelligent design as it is for intelligent design. There is no way to choose between the two scientifically.
"To infer from the presence of the same that intelligent design is involved with its presence is no less reasonable than assuming some other agent, which agent (or agents) on the part of evos seems a shade scrappy."
Not so. Natural selection is observable. Mutations and genetic recombination are observable. The fossil record is observable. The genetic code is observable. Speciation has been observed. The evidence for evolution is PHYSICAL. The evidence for a deity/God/intelligent designer is NOT physical. ID is not capable of being examined by science, until someone can come up with some physical evidence for the existence of the alleged designer.
posted on 12/13/2005 4:15:51 PM PST
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
And is just as much evidence for unintelligent design as it is for intelligent design.
No it is not. The evidence for unintelligent design, as I have stated, would be the absence of organized matter and the absence of predicatable laws governing the same. The two are highly distinct in nature.
Natural selection is observable. Mutations and genetic recombination are observable. The fossil record is observable. The genetic code is observable. Speciation has been observed.
Of course these things are observable. They are intelligently designed. The capacity to be observed would be additional evidence for intelligent design. Thank you for pointing that out. Of course, most of the claims of evolution are by indirect observation - certainly a legitimate form of observation, but not as reliable as direct observation, such as was practiced by astrologers in times of old.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson