Intelligent Design explains many follies

John10:10, posts like yours are really embarassing to most of us Christians. You are over here in the Science Forums and you are expected to provide evidence to support your positions and not to just make silly statements like "But it's a very bad choice and is not true science at all."Also, when you get an honest answer a response like just sounds sophomoric.But when you then go on to say: you really are expected to provide some evidence. Otherwise it's just another unsupported assertion and something to be ignored.If you have some support or evidence of ID, bring it out so it can be discussed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes. Why? What makes you think anyone does that anyway? Why not? Well, that kinda shows that you don't understand how science works. When you begin with a statement like 'Scientifically, one starts with the knowledge that "design" exists.', then you have already lost your way beyond any hope. For science to work, you cannot begin with a conclusion.An idea like 'one starts with the knowledge that "design" exists' is pure folly.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But they are not the only things. He (or she) tends to leave out the filtering part of the equation. That variable filter, one that changes with time, location, and circumstance is as important as the changes in the critters themselves. I think the key here is that first sentence. If some IDer can one day come up with a definition of design that is applicable to what is seen, they might be able to, at the least, begin a discussion and debate. But so far that has not happened.Take for example the stone arches or rock bridges. They serve no function. A man made bridge is designed to cross an obstacle to allow folk, critters and things to get from one side to another. The rock bridge though serves no function. It just is.But I don't agree that we start from a knowledge that design exists. There is a reason that we find natural bridges wonderous, and that is precisely because they are unusual, out of the ordinary.To look at your example of gravity, it is something we know because we can observe it. It's a word we invented to explain what we see. It's not a preconception, but rather a result.If IDers could first come up with some definition of what design is similar to the definition we use for gravity, "The thing that makes things fall down", then we could begin. The simplistic working definition of gravity above is still specific enough that all of us can then test it, and at the least, agree that is a working definition of the word, but not an explanation of the phenomina.Right now we have no such definition for design. We could make one that is really broad, and say "Design is that thing that gives things form or makes them work or determines how they will react with other things." The problem is that such a definition is so broad as to be meaningless.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think we are but wandering around common words and explanations.If he is including all of the things that lead to what results are seen in his notion of imperfections and adaptations, then I don't have much of a problem. It was not, and from his other messages is still not clear to me that he in including all those factors.And on gravity, I did not say the word explains gravity, but rather it is a word we coined to explain things we see, like things falling. The explanation of gravity itself is still one of the unanswered question TTBOMK.On the rest, I guess we wil have to wait and see what the definition of design turns out to be once it's designed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You can find some links IIRC in Message 5.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion