Nature belongs to ID

Hi there Vanessa, Well, not like that really, no. We observe that genetic mutations occur in reproduction of life. (My dad was a veterinary surgeon, and once put down a kitten that was born with two heads. Sad, but very much observed). We do not observe that computer programs reproduce and occasionally mutate in so doing. Interestingly, RAZD was arguing precisely that science is not certain - we observe, predict, and then either discard a theory, or determine that it seems to represent the best explanation available to us of the phenomena which we observe. As I understand it, scientists are not certain - they are sufficiently convinced to move scientific enquiry and advances in technology forward, but they are always open to improving their understanding. Well, there are obviously efforts ongoing to identify a unified grand theory which would unite quantum and Newtonian physics (I really hope I got that right - apologies to the scientists if I didn't), but in broad terms, science in its widest sense will always be a patchwork - the explanations of how a cell functions; of how electrons (sort of) orbit an atom's nucleus; of how gravity bends light; of how plate tectonics create earthquakes, will all be different from each other. Connected, yes, at a very deep and complex level, but still resembling a patchwork. There is nothing which says that a single, smooth, unified theory of all of existence should look neat and shiny - it could well look like a poor patchwork quilt of life. I think that a lot of people try to get away from the word "truth", because it always sounds like it is spelled with a capital "T". From reading the posts of most of the scientists on here, they seem to be interested in finding out the answers to "what", "how", "when", "how much" and similar questions. It is a matter of trying to understand what is, rather than trying to determine an ultimate reason for everything. It's a subtle distinction, but looking for "the truth" suggests too many preconceptions - let's just find out what is.

Hi again Vanessa, This is the heart of where we differ. It's not a question of what might be "preferable" or "better" - it's a question of what actually is. As I understand it, scientists aren't looking for something which is more satisfying - they're looking at the evidence to understand how things actually work, pure and simple.The answers may appear messy; astonishingly complicated and beyond most people's abilities to process (mine very much included, when it comes to higher mathematics and quantum mechanics for example), but I don't refute them because I feel that there must be some other explanation which is "preferable" or "better". Thinking that there must be something better is a preconception.

You mentioned this over on the other thread, and said you'd set out this theory for us. Please do - and could you please also set out the evidence you refer to ? I won't be able to do a great deal with it myself, I suspect, but the scientists on here will need to review your evidence to assess the theory.Thanks.vimesey