@Curtmungus your honor of being more famous than me is quite deserved. I salute you.
The Origin of Species
-
I voted ID, but only because it BEST fits my beliefs. I really could have voted for any of these.
I beleive evolution happened (s), but I see no conflict with God directing evolution as fitting to him. If God did direct evolution how could science possibly detect this as the work of God? All science would know is that one animal changed over time - you couldn’t prove or disprove Gods work in this.
As far as creationism, I take this to mean the origin of life rather than the universe. Again, if God directed certain molecules to form a DNA strand, how would/could science detect this? Again, science would merely note that these molecules combined in a way that created DNA.
In other words, I don’t beleive there must be a conflict between evolution, creation, intelligent design, etc. Certainly God is capable of creating the current diversity of live through a process such as evolution.
-
Evolution guided by intelligent design
Basically i’m an old-earth creationist. -
Excuse me if I am repeating something already said, I only skimmed the responses, however, who’s to say God didn’t use evolution to create life on this planet?
-
It’s all about the “scientific method” with you isn’t it Falk. You keep looking at it through you’re scientific lense, and until you can crawl out of the empirical box you’ve made for yourself, you’ll never understand the concept of the creator. How many time must I say it: it’s not about proof, it’s about as Janus puts it, “a leap of faith.” That’s the wonder of the belief in a creator. When all the evidence seems to point you away from the existence of God, you still say “I believe”, which is a notion completely foreign, fallacious, and unsupportable to most hardcore science types, but is still a very powerful notion, and one that cannot be duplicated within the scientific worldview.
Oh, and to all, please don’t use what I’ve said here to stereotype or characterize me into any box. That really annoys the hel out of me. I like to retain my personal anonimity. Thanx :)
-
@F_alk:
It’s not an attempt to undermine anything. It’s simply a competing theory.
I don’t think it is a theory. It can not be used to predict any behavior.
The conditions at the start of the universe could have been anything.
That is true. We can’t say what was there … at least not yet. So, i would
again not call it a theory, but speculation.
Just because we are -at the moment- unknowing, does that mean that the former believe of the sun being town across the sky by a chariot was a theory?It’s a very popular argument in cosmology.
It is not :)
To the link …
“To use the lottery fallacy against the fine tuning argument we must postulate a suitably large array of universes for which we have no other evidence at all. This isn’t a fatal problem because we are also postulating a Creator but persuading an atheist that he is standing on the same metaphysical ground as his theistic opponent can be rather hard.”I don’t think so. It is just that the Creator argument (like the many worlds argument) can not be checked yet. Either you have to build a sound scientific theory of how to check the existance, or leave it as metaphysics/religion.
It also says:
"An example of the former (fallacy) is when we are asked why we are not amazed by the incredible odds that we were born given the number of eggs and sperm produced by our parents. Is it not amazing that I am not someone else? This is fallacious " … with regard to the existance of life.On the terms, the same lines can be used against the creationist argument on the natural constants.
“As we are investigating why the laws of physics are as they are, the answer ‘because they are’ does not seem to take us very far forward and indeed, begs the question.”This is effectively using the same argument once to defend creationism and once discarding it as a fallacy.
The author then says “but like all arguments for God, this one does not seem to convince anyone who does not want to be convinced” but i doubt that he considers the vice versa case which is as true. No scientist (i know of) wants to mix science into religion. On the other hand, we have people who want to mix religion into science (mainly believing/faithful religious people, who find it difficult to keep their religious believe while learning their science with critical thinking and constants doubts. It may be hard for a religious person to stay faithful when there is “no hard evidence”, intelligent design is a nice way out of that.)
All in all the article is putting up a huge straw man.
“We cannot know that our particular set of physical laws and constants are the only ones that will produce a viable universe.”
Agreed, yet
"One thing a design argument must not do is look for a ‘God in the Gaps.’ "
which is exactly what she is doing. We have insufficient knowledge, and probably never a way to gain more. Thus we need a creator.
That is not science, and exactly looking for a “god in the gaps”.He in lengths argues about the existance of universes or not, then…
"Victor Stenger… has tried to demonstrate that many different constants produce viable universes …
First, it assumes exactly the same laws of physics that we have but with different numbers. Most fine tuners would say that the laws themselves have been finely tuned and so cannot be taken as read.That is a “God in the Gaps” ….
(1) See we don’t know wether other universes could bear life. The universe as we see it must have been created the way it is (with its natural constants).
(2) Look, here are some “life bearing” universes, with different constants.
(3) The universe as we see it must have been created with laws the way it is.I do appreciate that science is pushed by these questions. I yet don’t see them as being science themselves.
“The problems with the multiple universe theory are manifold but the most important is that we have no evidence for them whatsoever.”
We have no scientific evidence for god.
“there is no theory that predicts they might exist.”
Wheelers interpretation of the quantum mechanical measurement process lives on spawning more and more universes from the current one. There has been a ST:TNG show where Worf skips between these universes that is based on that idea."Also, for the multiple universe theory to help the atheist at all, the universes must all have different physical laws "
No, SOME must differ, not all.“Finally, the vast number of universes required seems to insult every principal of scientific elegance from Ockham’s razor onwards”
Is it better to introduce someting totally new, like a creator, or to add more of what is know already ?“The atheist should realise that hypothesising multiple universe is metaphysics and not science.”
We do. Unfortunately the “designers” don’t see that adding a creator is as much metaphysics. Both are not holding under scientific examination.I agree with:
“It is not a scientific theory because it cannot be experimentally verified or falsified… Indeed it is a metaphysical statement itself–as it lies behind science, it cannot be examined scientifically”
Until i see an experiment that shows the signature of a creator, i doubt one exists. I wonder why it is not applied to the creation arguement by the author.“So would the discovery of life on other planets with the same or a very similar genetic architecture to our own (be evidence for a creator), as this would suggest that different pathways to life are not common.”
That holds nothing.
If a way to create life is the most probable, and happened on two different planets, doesn’t mean at all that a creator created this “most likely” (or maybe even only possible) way.
The personal need for a creator speaks out of the whole article. I respect this personal need, but strongly object to bring it into science and mix metaphysics into science.Remember, paradigm shifts often move with glacial speed. How long did it take germ theory to become established? How long before scientists gave up on spontaneous generation? Why was homosexuality considered a mental disorder all the way up to the 1970’s?
Yes … so we are slowly moving away from the need of a creator, and just see the last defenses of the ones that follow the old paradigm?
Just a couple points:
1. The argument uses science to offer an inductive reason to believe the universe was fine-tuned to support life. CURRENT science is that the physical constants could have been anything. Using relatavity, we can figure out what the universe would have been like if any of the constants had been different by even a millionth of a decimal point. In almost all cases, the universe is not life-supporting (only hydrogen atoms exist, stars can’t form, molecules can’t form, etc.). The conclusion is that we are either very lucky, or somebody rigged the universe. Here are your repsonses:
2. There could be an inifinite amount of universes. We just happen to be one of the lucky ones. True, this would be a defeater, but believing in infinite parallel universes at this point is a matter of faith. There certainly isn’t any evidence to hang your hat on.
3. Who’s to say life couldn’t arise in different conditions? To which I would reply that believing in a being made purely of hydrogen requires more faith than belief in God.
As for its popularity, it is certainly popular in philosophy, and I’ve never met any physicists who haven’t heard of it (granted, I’ve only talked to two ;) In the book “God and the philosophers” I read that half of cosmologists are theists, thanks in part to the fine-tuning argument. Take it for what it’s worth, but keep in mind that there wouldn’t be such an effort to disprove it if it wasn’t popular and didn’t have a certain appeal.
Here’s a better formulation of it: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/gpsu/old-conf/Review/The Fallacies of Fine-tuning.pdf#search=‘fine tuning argument AND cosmology’
-
Excuse me if I am repeating something already said, I only skimmed the responses, however, who’s to say God didn’t use evolution to create life on this planet?
This is pretty funny given that i said the exact same thing prior to your statement.
-
How many time must I say it: it’s not about proof, it’s about as Janus puts it, “a leap of faith.” That’s the wonder of the belief in a creator. When all the evidence seems to point you away from the existence of God, you still say “I believe”, which is a notion completely foreign, fallacious, and unsupportable to most hardcore science types, but is still a very powerful notion, and one that cannot be duplicated within the scientific worldview.
Yes, it is a leap of faith. But I don’t need that kind of faith to lead a healthy life or to find some sort of salvation. I do not believe (these are MY beliefs, I am not speaking for others :wink: ) that I need a required faith to take the place of an explanation of how our world was created or how the lives of the very first men were. And of course a leap of faith can’t be duplicated. I could say that “I believe” that there was a Middle Earth; another notion which can not be duplicated in the scientific worldview. Doesn’t mean it really happened :wink: . It is simply as you say, faith.
Religion, from my point of view, can sometimes have a desperite way of gaining the confidence of the masses by saying “look, we figured it out”. While science works at a pace of its own and gradually sheds light upon the things foriegn and unknown to us. I am more prone to have the “belief” that God set the world in motion and from this world derived an intelligent species. Man. It’s way more believable than the Garden of Eden or Noah’s Ark.
-
Real is a relative term. I agree with you about the biblical creation stories though. I don’t think any rational mind would take those stories as what actually happened.
-
How would you “Christians” feel if as a Science teacher I began pushing science as a religion? Or isn’t that you have already said exists, and wouldn’t doing the opposite be two wrongs?
Yes, that’s very important to point out. I didn’t think of it until you mentioned it. It really rises the suspicians of a Christian community if one would push evolutionary science as a way for how our world began and how men came to be with technology, religion, civilization, etc.
Now, you have this alternative ‘science’ fused in with what Christians believe and the extremist science gurus up in arms because of that. Like I said before…. clever. When ever there is a black there is always a white, ya know?
-
As for my questions about the laws of physics you missed the point. It’s not how things work, it’s why it works that way.
But sometimes it is hard to differ between the how and why.
Why is there gravity ? … Because mass bends space.
How is there gravity?.. Mass bends space and moves along the curved space.@221B:
I beleive evolution happened (s), but I see no conflict with God directing evolution as fitting to him. If God did direct evolution how could science possibly detect this as the work of God? All science would know is that one animal changed over time - you couldn’t prove or disprove Gods work in this.
And as we can’t prove or disprove it, what place does it have in science ?
It’s all about the “scientific method” with you isn’t it Falk.
Well, of course it is when it comes to mixing unscientific things into science.
ID and creationism can’t be proven or disproven. ID accepts evolution, but implies that there is something behind it, a goal (otherwise it wouldn’t be “directed”, a direction can only lead to a goal). And we can’t prove or disprove it. I don’t mind anyone believing in their own version of afterlife etc. , but i don’t see how ID and creationism are scientific. It is more scientific to claim that in each volcano there sits a little god, and when you anger him, the vulcnao explodes. You could prove or disprove that by sitting in front of the vcolcano and shouting/acting insults to check which one will cause the volcano to explode.… CURRENT science is that the physical constants could have been anything. … The conclusion is that we are either very lucky, or somebody rigged the universe.
True, this would be a defeater, but believing in infinite parallel universes at this point is a matter of faith. There certainly isn’t any evidence to hang your hat on.
I agree. So, how makes believeing that it was rigged a scientific theory?
As is said, both are not. Science has no way to touch meta-physics (that’s why it is meta). So, don’t try to bring it into science.3. Who’s to say life couldn’t arise in different conditions? To which I would reply that believing in a being made purely of hydrogen requires more faith than belief in God.
See, i only need one other set of constants out of the uncountably infinite numver of them, maybe there the creation of Si -based life is more favorable. Just as you can’t disprove god, you can’t disprove that there is an infinite number of sets where life can come into existance. Even the variation of 10^-6 has an uncountably infinite number of possibilities in there. Actually, there are the same amount of numbers between 0 and 10^-6 as there are numbers >10^-6.
As for its popularity, it is certainly popular in philosophy …
In one country, which by chance calls itself “god’s own country”.
Take it for what it’s worth, but keep in mind that there wouldn’t be such an effort to disprove it if it wasn’t popular and didn’t have a certain appeal.
It is dangerous to science. It makes people stop asking behind things. Look, if one of parts of equipment behave strangely for no (apparent) reason, i don’t say “it must be divine interference”, but just look harder to find the error.
I don’t think any rational mind would take those (literal biblical) stories as what actually happened.
They did, and it started to stop only a few hundred years ago. In 1925 there were still rational hardcore believers out there. Now, as science can explain more and more, they start to look for the gaps, claiming that the failure of science to be able to explain all is a proof of god. I myself doubt that mankind ever can explain everything, but we are making progress (because of science) to explain more and more. But as i said, if you find the middlestone in one gap, you create two gaps.
@SHP:
However, we should not be teaching religion as science or vice versa.
Exactly my position. If you start promoting ID as science, i will have to storm into churches and “prove” how your belief can not lead to salvation. (that would be equally as unfitting).
@SHP:
If we followed your line of reasoning then Galileo and Copernicus should never have been able to publish
For justus … at that time, every rational man knew that the sun revolved around the earth, the earth was flat, and Rome was the center of it. Everyone knew that women where only inclompete men, and the natural order was to have kings rule over their people. etc.
-
Excellent posting Falk! I admire your eloquent defense of science!
“a leap of faith.” That’s the wonder of the belief in a creator. When all the evidence seems to point you away from the existence of God, you still say “I believe”, which is a notion completely foreign, fallacious, and unsupportable to most hardcore science types, but is still a very powerful notion, and one that cannot be duplicated within the scientific worldview.
A famous physicist once said"I believe in God because it makes me feel better".I think that about sums it up as far as the impact that “faith” has on our way of thinking.It makes people feel better.
I think its odd that there is a “theory” of the Trinity (the idea of God,the Son and the Holy Ghost,all manifestations of the same entity) taught in theological universities.I suppose that even the most passionate of persons,can,at times, see contradictions in their religion,forcing them to take a “scientific” approach to try and resolve the paradoxes that religion generates…But invariably,they will go back to their “faith”,believing that this brief interlude into critical thinking was just a test of their faith,perhaps spurred on by the Devil to try and steal their soul. -
well F_alk - you know i can’t resist the urge . . .
@F_alk:
As for my questions about the laws of physics you missed the point. It’s not how things work, it’s why it works that way.
But sometimes it is hard to differ between the how and why.
Why is there gravity ? … Because mass bends space.
How is there gravity?.. Mass bends space and moves along the curved space.just to be a pain . . .
but WHY does mass bend space? What compels it to do so? What generated the law for this. No prime mover? Just “because”? (I realize that one might do the same with a deity, but still . . . )@221B:
I beleive evolution happened (s), but I see no conflict with God directing evolution as fitting to him. If God did direct evolution how could science possibly detect this as the work of God? All science would know is that one animal changed over time - you couldn’t prove or disprove Gods work in this.
And as we can’t prove or disprove it, what place does it have in science ?
you mean like macroevolution?
It seems to too often be taught in both theological and scientific communities that spirituality and science must be mutually exclusive. No one truly “wins” with this mindset, nor is it either scientific, or religiously dogmatic (unless we want it to be . . . ).It’s all about the “scientific method” with you isn’t it Falk.
not just with F_alk. As a scientist and as a physician i am all about the scientific method. It goes far in helping make sense of the physical world.
I don’t mind anyone believing in their own version of afterlife etc. ,
whew - that’s lucky!
but i don’t see how ID and creationism are scientific. It is more scientific to claim that in each volcano there sits a little god, and when you anger him, the vulcnao explodes. You could prove or disprove that by sitting in front of the vcolcano and shouting/acting insults to check which one will cause the volcano to explode.
i’ve got into this before and been challenged as being “crazy” (i think “psychotic” was the word here), but there is evidence of God in the hearts and minds of people the world over. Miracles happen daily in medicine that are not (currently) explainable by experts in their fields.
People do not have “put into their heads” that there is a little god in the volcano. There is either a folie-a-deux on a massive scale, or there is something else that science is unable to explain.quote=“Mary”]… CURRENT science is that the physical constants could have been anything. … The conclusion is that we are either very lucky, or somebody rigged the universe.
True, this would be a defeater, but believing in infinite parallel universes at this point is a matter of faith. There certainly isn’t any evidence to hang your hat on.
I agree. So, how makes believeing that it was rigged a scientific theory?perhaps not a scientific theory, but this makes it no less valid.
As for its popularity, it is certainly popular in philosophy …
In one country, which by chance calls itself “god’s own country”.
really? so aside from defining logic sets, what good is philosophy if
BINGO - we’re here because of the most unlikely occurance happened?Take it for what it’s worth, but keep in mind that there wouldn’t be such an effort to disprove it if it wasn’t popular and didn’t have a certain appeal.
It is dangerous to science. It makes people stop asking behind things. Look, if one of parts of equipment behave strangely for no (apparent) reason, i don’t say “it must be divine interference”, but just look harder to find the error.
you realize of course that questioning evolution is considered by many so-called-scientists as “idiocy” or “ignorance”.
Exactly my position. If you start promoting ID as science, i will have to storm into churches and “prove” how your belief can not lead to salvation. (that would be equally as unfitting).
hmmm . . .
ID is SCIENCE! ID is SCIENCE!now . . . Go F_alk Go!
-
221B Baker Street wrote:
I beleive evolution happened (s), but I see no conflict with God directing evolution as fitting to him. If God did direct evolution how could science possibly detect this as the work of God? All science would know is that one animal changed over time - you couldn’t prove or disprove Gods work in this.And as we can’t prove or disprove it, what place does it have in science ?
Lots of things in science (as in religion) cannot be proven or disproven, for example string theory or what is past the event horizon of a black hole. That doesn’t mean its not worthwhile, both scientifically or theologically, to speculate. And you never know that someday it might become possible to scientifically test for it (wouldn’t an experiment that proves God be interesting :D ?).
-
@cystic:
Excuse me if I am repeating something already said, I only skimmed the responses, however, who’s to say God didn’t use evolution to create life on this planet?
This is pretty funny given that i said the exact same thing prior to your statement.
I have a tendancy to reply to statements on the way down the thread - sometimes this results in re-iterating what others have already said, though, I do not do this on purpose as it is redundant.
-
@stuka:
How many time must I say it: it’s not about proof, it’s about as Janus puts it, “a leap of faith.” That’s the wonder of the belief in a creator. When all the evidence seems to point you away from the existence of God, you still say “I believe”, which is a notion completely foreign, fallacious, and unsupportable to most hardcore science types, but is still a very powerful notion, and one that cannot be duplicated within the scientific worldview.
Yes, it is a leap of faith. But I don’t need that kind of faith to lead a healthy life or to find some sort of salvation. I do not believe (these are MY beliefs, I am not speaking for others :wink: ) that I need a required faith to take the place of an explanation of how our world was created or how the lives of the very first men were. And of course a leap of faith can’t be duplicated. I could say that “I believe” that there was a Middle Earth; another notion which can not be duplicated in the scientific worldview. Doesn’t mean it really happened :wink: . It is simply as you say, faith.
Religion, from my point of view, can sometimes have a desperite way of gaining the confidence of the masses by saying “look, we figured it out”. While science works at a pace of its own and gradually sheds light upon the things foriegn and unknown to us. I am more prone to have the “belief” that God set the world in motion and from this world derived an intelligent species. Man. It’s way more believable than the Garden of Eden or Noah’s Ark.
And sometimes science proves the Bible right.
For instance:
God set his paths in the sea……Ocean Currents
God pitched a tent for the sun…The Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around
And isn’t the basic dimensions of Noah’s ark still used today to create transport tankers as it’s the most stable skematic we have?So maybe faith isn’t as ignorant as some scientists would have us believe. Maybe it’s scientists that sometimes need the light shed to them to understand what some christians have taken as faith?
-
however, who’s to say God didn’t use evolution to create life on this planet?
And like I said earlier if we are going to decide to teach religion in school lets do so in an academic/intellectual manner not as prostiletizing which has no place in a center of learning. Even if you believe this part of ID then this should be taught as part of the religion/theology of Christianity and which allows us to open a way to discuss in school the theological differences between the evangelical, luthern and catholic schools of thought. However, we should not be teaching religion as science or vice versa. How would you “Christians” feel if as a Science teacher I began pushing science as a religion? Or isn’t that you have already said exists, and wouldn’t doing the opposite be two wrongs?
SHP, I have two issues iwth your statements.
-
I agree, no theory should be given to students as fact until it has been proven, undeniably, as a fact. For instance, telling students the sky is blue is a proved theory. However, evolution has many issues with it, namely the missing links (and lately, according to THC, DISC, Discovery Magazine and Popular Science they think Neanderthals and Homosapiens lived side by side much like German Shepards and Doxhunds) as well as Creationism cannot be proven difinitively. Thus, both sides should be displayed equally or neither should be displayed at all.
-
I personally feel that much science is a religion. There are minor differences in opinion, and many scientists will tell you that they only believe in facts, but so will many christians, muslims, buddists, scientologists, etc. It’s all in perspective and opinion and in faith that what you believe is right.
-
-
@Real:
Excellent posting Falk! I admire your eloquent defense of science!
“a leap of faith.” That’s the wonder of the belief in a creator. When all the evidence seems to point you away from the existence of God, you still say “I believe”, which is a notion completely foreign, fallacious, and unsupportable to most hardcore science types, but is still a very powerful notion, and one that cannot be duplicated within the scientific worldview.
A famous physicist once said"I believe in God because it makes me feel better".I think that about sums it up as far as the impact that “faith” has on our way of thinking.It makes people feel better.
I think its odd that there is a “theory” of the Trinity (the idea of God,the Son and the Holy Ghost,all manifestations of the same entity) taught in theological universities.I suppose that even the most passionate of persons,can,at times, see contradictions in their religion,forcing them to take a “scientific” approach to try and resolve the paradoxes that religion generates…But invariably,they will go back to their “faith”,believing that this brief interlude into critical thinking was just a test of their faith,perhaps spurred on by the Devil to try and steal their soul.Thinking the world was round took a leap of faith as all the scientists thought it was flat.
-
Exactly CC, why does religion and science have to be mutually exclusive? If God exists, as many of us believe he does, then did he not write the laws of science? The very same laws scientists study? So in their studies, are they not studying God and revelling in his works? Of course, those questions only apply if God exists.
If God does not exist, science is helpless to prove it. In the famous words of the Russian Astronaut: “I am in space, and there is no God here.” In other words, how can you prove that something does not exist anywhere?
As I said a couple posts above, would it not be wiser to teach both sides of the story with all the theories and conjecture and facts and allow the children to decide on their own which path they believe to be true or to believe that both paths are false or complimentary to each other and true?
-
@221B:
Lots of things in science (as in religion) cannot be proven or disproven, for example string theory or what is past the event horizon of a black hole.
But string theory can be proven in principle. Just not now. Just like had no idea about light could transfer momentum before Einstein.
That doesn’t mean its not worthwhile, both scientifically or theologically, to speculate. And you never know that someday it might become possible to scientifically test for it (wouldn’t an experiment that proves God be interesting :D ?).
Well, for string theory, we know how to test it -in theory-. Anything where we even don’t have an idea of how to test it (like what is inside a black hole etc) is metaphysics. Pure speculation and no science at all.
@cystic:
well F_alk - you know i can’t resist the urge . . .
sigh well then, if you must :D ;) :)
but WHY does mass bend space? What compels it to do so? What generated the law for this.
Mainly mathmatics :) … the 4D space a Minowski metric mathematically was known before we knew it can be applied to special relativity. I didn’t spend much time at GR lectures, so i know but i can’t tell which mathematics sits behind GR and “inspired” it.
No prime mover?
Maybe logic :)
And as we can’t prove or disprove it, what place does it have in science ?
you mean like macroevolution?
It seems to too often be taught in both theological and scientific communities that spirituality and science must be mutually exclusive. No one truly “wins” with this mindset, nor is it either scientific, or religiously dogmatic (unless we want it to be . . . ).I think they both win when not being mixed. Otherwise it too too easily becomes esoterics. There are questions which religion can’t answer, there are questions which science can’t answer. Just because one discipline can’t doesn’t mean the other can.
but i don’t see how ID and creationism are scientific.
i’ve got into this before and been challenged as being “crazy” (i think “psychotic” was the word here), but there is evidence of God in the hearts and minds of people the world over.
The problem is that this is personal evidence and not quantitative evidence. And science can’t live from personal evidence. I don’t say it is less real for that person, it is just no scienctific evidence.
Miracles happen daily in medicine that are not (currently) explainable by experts in their fields.
Exactly. currently. Like we had no idea of how the sun worked before fusion was predicted.
There is either a folie-a-deux on a massive scale, or there is something else that science is unable to explain.
The sun was bigger. It affected each and everyone. Actually it was quite a blow to creationists, when a way was found allowed the sun to be older than a few 1000 years.
So, how makes believeing that it was rigged a scientific theory?
perhaps not a scientific theory, but this makes it no less valid.
No, it is abut that. I don’t care if it is valid or not. I care about wether it should be teached / mentioned in Science.
really? so aside from defining logic sets, what good is philosophy if
BINGO - we’re here because of the most unlikely occurance happened?as i said, it gave us models which seem to describe parts of nature very well.
And you van’t prove at all it was the “most unlikely”, you can’t even prove it was “unlikely”. How much more likeliness did we win by the design ?
100% ? i guess not, we could always have been very unlucky ;).you realize of course that questioning evolution is considered by many so-called-scientists as “idiocy” or “ignorance”.
I already said i appreciate that it push us to close more and more gaps.
ID is SCIENCE! ID is SCIENCE!
Let me think of something along this lines:
http://www.ysa.org.au/themill/2000.1.hell.html -
And sometimes science proves the Bible right.
Where does the water come from? Was god and water created out of the metric ?
Suggested Topics
