Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
ID not unscientific
Line 20: Line 20:     
:By the way, a [[square root]] can be calculated without a machine, using procedures known to mathematicians centuries before the invention of electronic calculators. So "can't explain it" really does mean "the theory simply is no good"; see [[theory and fact]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:15, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 
:By the way, a [[square root]] can be calculated without a machine, using procedures known to mathematicians centuries before the invention of electronic calculators. So "can't explain it" really does mean "the theory simply is no good"; see [[theory and fact]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:15, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:"''ID eventually comes down to a godlike figure, which is supernatural, science deals with natural phenomena, and thus ID is not science''":  This is wrong in two respects.  First, although you are correct that ID ''eventually'' comes down to a god figure, other ''immediate'' (hypothetical) possibilities include aliens.  They are ''not'' supernatural, so ID is within the realm of science.
 +
:Second, science only dealing with the natural does not preclude it from inferring a designer.  Archaeologists find stone artifacts which they can determine are stone ''tools'', fashioned by an ''intelligent being'', and do not have to identify or study that being in order to come to that conclusion.  Concluding that life had an intelligent designer is exactly the same thing in principle, and that designer possibly or probably being God does not prevent science from reaching that conclusion.  However, that designer probably being God is a strong motive for misotheists to reject Intelligent Design&mdash;for religious reasons!
 +
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu