Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)

The Bible disagrees with you:

quote:

---

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

---

Faith is the evidence of things not seen, but science deals only with things that are "seen" - i.e. observable. That isn't faith, it's probability. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. The autopsy will determine that the greatest probability is that a virus caused the death. It doesn't take any faith to accept a probable explanation. Well, no. There is nothing scientific about ID. It doesn't propose mechanisms for how things happen. It is just an argument from ignorance: "We haven't figured out how (fill in the blank) works, so a supernatural 'designer' must have done it."ID is pure religion. It just disguises itself by not referring to a specific God.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

That's not an "assumption". It's a conclusion, based on the interaction of the electron with it's surroundings - which we observe. But we can measure the velocity or the position - and a measurement is an observation. So yes, we can observe an electron, even if only indirectly. Science is not about "proof". It's about finding the best possible explanation for the evidence. What does "nothing more than theories" even mean? A theory is the best available explanation of the evidence. "Nothing more than the best available explanation" doesn't make much sense. Again, science is not about absolutes. Of course the theories will be improved and fine tuned as more experiments are done and more evidence is collected. Science is about what we do know, not about what we haven't discovered yet. First, it was not a theory because it was never tested. If it had been tested, it would have been falsified.Second, anybody who put "faith" in that notion was not a scientist - because science does not work on faith. If they had been scientists, they would have tested the hypothesis and falsified it. No, we didn't "know" any such thing - once again, because the hypothesis had never been tested. When it was tested, by observing the planets, it was falsified. It is possible to put faith in geocentrism, etc. but that faith is not science. It was science that overthrew those misplaced faiths. Once again, probability is something that is observable and measureable. It is not possible to measure the probability of God existing, so it is not the same as science. As I said, science is never about being "completely sure". It is about choosing the explanation that has the highest probability of being correct (or the explanation which is the closest approximation of "correct"). And the only way to judge the highest probability is by comparing probabilities. You need to be able to measure the probabilities. That is not the same as a vague belief that there "probably" is a God. That's pretty much exactly what ID is saying: "Since we can't conceive of life arising by naturalistic means, it must have been "designed" by a higher intelligence." That automatically shuts down any possibility of us ever figuring out how it happened.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

No. The doctor has physical evidence that the virus exists in the body. He can also see tissue damage, etc. which shows what killed the person. Most Christians would probably accept the doctor's explanation, that the person was killed by a virus. Else, why would a Christian ever go to a doctor? Wouldn't that be going against God's will? The distinction is between what is science and what is not. Geocentriam never was science. Anything that we "know" today because of science can be changed in the future by science. Since it is not faith now, it can never be "misplaced faith" in the future. If you think there were some, name them. No. You're still equating faith with science. Scientists come up with the best explanation they can for the evidence that they have available. They do not have "faith" in that explanation, they have evidence. Remember: faith is the evidence of things not seen.Newton's laws of motion have been "improved" by Einstein's theory of relativity, but that doesn't mean that Newton was "wrong". It just means that Einstein improved our knowledge of motion. You're welcome to back up the "personification" of quanta in the physics forum. Until you do so, I'm pretty skeptical. Spinoza was a philosopher, not a scientist. (And I rather like that philosophy but it has nothing to do with the difference between faith and science.) No, it doesn't. That's the whole point. Evidence has to be objective, experiments have to be reproducible. Everybody has to get the same answer or it isn't the best available answer. If I "observe" God in a different way than you do, then it isn't science. ID shuts down the possibility of finding anything out because it starts with the assumption that we can't figure it out. It starts by saying that naturalistic processes could not have made the universe. But all that we can observe is naturalistic processes - so ID automatically eliminates any possible understanding. But if the "who" did it by "supernatural" means, there is no way that we can ever understand the "how". Science only has the natural to understand the "how" as best it can.Religion says "God wants you dead". Science produces new drugs to fight diseases. It doesn't care "who" made you sick - only "how" to cure you.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Nope.Science, with all its limitations, is based on what we can observe. Faith is based on what we can not observe. Two completely different things.(By the way, I don't "subscribe" to evolution or any other periodical.)

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

None of that has anything to do with my point. My point is that science is not based on faith, it is based on observation.Intelligent Design is not science because it is based solely on faith. It postulates a "designer" who specifically can not be observed.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Um, it may have escaped your notice but this is the Intelligent Design forum. "Direct" observation is not necessary. Inference from direct observations does not require faith.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

FYI, randman is not subject to the forum rules. He's the "village idiot", who must be tolerated no matter what he says or does. Thus saith Admin.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.