Glad to see you are back, have a look around, then you can go back home... <img src=http://members.cox.net/rakshashas/Ostrich%20Animated.gif>
I read some of this thread, and am wondering what the point of this ID stuff is? Personally, i don't find: "In the beginning an Intelligent Designer created the Heavens and the Earth"? to be any more believable, nor reasonable, nor likely, nor provable than the previous version. In fact, i find the original version superior in three ways : 1) blaming the creation on God allows for more wiggle room than pinning it down to an "Intelligent Designer"; 2) The word "God" uses 16 fewer letters of the alphabet; 3) Use of the word "God" results in a more lyrical sentence.
Maybe so. But I thought I would refute the very first post of this thread. Further, the equivalence between Creationism and ID is not entirely without relevance. It provides insight. For example, whereas the theory of evolution has a scientific agenda, the shifting of the term from Creationism to ID essentially beginning in 1987 has a painfully obvious political and religious agenda. Origins and intent offer insight. Did you listen to the Miller lecture? It's really quite good.
The theory of evolution has no agenda whatsoever. People have agendas, not theories... Real science is without personal agendas...that's what makes it science...fully devoid of any possible subjectivity. Anyone trying to advance a theory, has an agenda... Someone who does nothing more than present a scientific theory with no interest at all in whether or not anyone else accepts or believes that agenda is a scientist... The Darwinists in this forum are not scientists, they are using scientific rules to push an agenda against theists...
Ok Kjkent would you review the debate we had about the Anthopic principle. ------- Father of string theory admits that if we do not accept multiverse than science hard pressed to answer ID. If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design? I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825305.800.html Before you come back with the typical anti ID argument about coin flips read the interview and understand what he is saying. "Without any explanation for natures fine tunings ... one might argue that a mathematicall unique solution would be as faith based as ID." And note from context and careful examination of the article Mr. Sussman currently argues that ID is faith based because he and other string theorists are proposing the virtually non testable hypothesis that there are infinite universes. If multiverse strike you as farfetched conjecture.... then based on our current science your conclusion should only be design or at least an admission that the universe is so fine tuned it sure looks designed.
Yes, if you use your tailored-to-fit faith-based definition of 'scientific'. Otherwise it is just like any other faith based belief - undisprovable, and therefore not scientific at all.
ID is a totally worthless faith-driven mantra... to be ignored... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design but for some ppl, its either that, or counseling... what can u do...
jem - where have u been hiding since this and the ensuing exchanges on the anthropic bollox subject? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1241268&highlight=anthropic#post1241268 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1243740&highlight=wiggle#post1243740