Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What difference does evidence of ID make?
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 3 of 20 (41581)
05-28-2003 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Springboard
05-02-2003 12:22 PM


The only reason I can come up with is that 'science' is
viewed to undermine faith in a God. So if you can come
up with something that looks scientific it makes one feel
all warm and glowy inside ... a bit like Linus's blanket.
It seems to have elluded some people that science says nothing
about the nature and/or existence of any God ... it simply attempts
to uncover the 'rules' that nature appears to follow.
Whether these rules came about by chance or intelligent design
doesn't really matter to most scientists ... it's figuring out
how things work that is interesting.
Take evolution ... it wasn't really about undermining christianity
it's just a theory that covers the observations. If that makes
some people nervous perhaps they should examine their faith rather
than attack the stimulus of their doubt. I thought doubt
was considered a good thing in faith anyhow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Springboard, posted 05-02-2003 12:22 PM Springboard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by MrHambre, posted 07-17-2003 3:57 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 9 of 20 (46347)
07-17-2003 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by mike the wiz
07-16-2003 9:00 PM


Newton wasn't a scientist .... he was a natural philosopher.
[Added by edit:: Besides he invented calculus, the man was
clearly evil to the core
[This message has been edited by Peter, 07-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 07-16-2003 9:00 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 07-18-2003 12:48 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 13 of 20 (46401)
07-18-2003 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Warren
07-17-2003 8:34 PM


Re: The real reason
quote:
If your are arguing for the merely possible that's fine.
Arguing for the highly improbable is fine too ... which is what
you are doing.
But agruing for ANYTHING requires a certain amount of evidential
support. I am not even as fussy as some here .. I don't require
'scientific' evidence to consider something worth looking in to,
just some credible hypothesis backed up by some relevant
observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Warren, posted 07-17-2003 8:34 PM Warren has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024