I've just discovered this site, so perhaps I'm late to this party. But Mr. Modulous' arguments are fascinating. I have begun to observe how destructive anti-ID reasoning is, from a purely practical viewpoint. To be an anti-ID'er you have to demean the great minds of history ...
No, don't be silly.
and you have to find flaws in life forms, in order to prove they weren't designed.
Fortunately, there are lots.
It's actually quite the opposite. If evolutionists followed their theory to its logical conclusions they would see that thought itself is only an illusion, an electro-chemical phenomenon that happens to have survived through the generations.
That is not a logical conclusion to draw from the theory of evolution. It's a complete
non sequitur.
The evolved human thinks what he thinks because it works, not because it's true.
Fortunately, being right is more adaptive than being wrong.
It is precisely because through most of history men have believed that they were capable of objective thought, and because they believed the world to have been made, at least partially, for their discovery, that man engaged in discovery and analysis.
You are wrong. Pleanty of people who are not creationists manage to "engage in discovery and analysis".
The anti-ID'er must disregard the first piece of evidence he encounters - his own reason ...
No.
But why the prejudice against an ID'er? This prejudice is preventing you from thinking clearly about how an ID'er might work. The biblical God makes man from 'the dust of the earth', remember? You never find the rough edges of his work - everything is curved back on itself like our planetary globe.
Did you just claim that there are no sharp edges in nature?
You have to confront incomprehensible things whether you believe in God or not. Is it in any way logical to think that a quart or so of grey matter can comprehend all reality?
No, and of course no-one claims that it can.
What is it that leads you to even try?
No-one you are addressing has ever tried to "comprehend all reality".
I can't see why an evolved being should care about anything. The evolved being certainly shouldn't mind some tales of a creator if it helps get you through the night.
And yet you are an evolved being, and you care about the tales which get you through the night.
So I think you've got it precisely backwards. Just as the human who uses the power of the internal combustion engine can win a race against the runner, so the ID believing human has an unfair advantage over the naturalist who must spend all his time explaining away the obvious.
Someone has been telling you ridiculous lies. Naturalists are not in fact obliged to "spend all their time explaining away the obvious".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
