199
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + + +
Talk:Intelligent design controversy (view source)
Revision as of 15:52, April 8, 2008
, 15:52, April 8, 2008no edit summary
: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—for religious reasons!
: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—for religious reasons!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::''It is because atheists and materialists don't want their arguments to be examined that they imprison, expel or fire anyone who dares challenge them.'' Buwha? Who's gone to JAIL for blaspheming against the Gospel of Darwin?! Most of the time, us materialists prefer to just point and laugh. I do hope you're not talking about Kent Hovind (who went to prison for tax fraud), or Al York (who stabbed a man to death....for arguing with him about evolution).
::Intelligent Design is NOT a "scientific theory". It makes no useful predictions, proposes no experiments. It only exists as a rather transparent attempt to get Creationism back into schools, where they think it belongs. And the courts have decided it fails at that, too.
::And just so you know, those pesky Evilutionists have [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html already done the flagellum].
::[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html AND the eye.] --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)