Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
56 online now:
(56 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,607 Year: 3,253/14,102 Month: 194/724 Week: 43/93 Day: 3/5 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists
Member (Idle past 1000 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Message 5 of 146 (792319)
10-06-2016 9:08 PM

Recognizing design...
You mention that we can recognize design when we see it. It's not that easy.

Perhaps one of the best groups around at dealing with this issue is the archaeologists. (Full disclosure--I am one.)

And we don't just scratch our heads when we see something unfamiliar and say, "Hmmm. Must be designed."

Rather we work from analogy. We readily observe people all over the world fashioning bifacial flakes, but find that those flakes are almost never found occurring naturally, and certainly are not found in any quantities in rock slides, talus slopes or cattle wallows.

In graduate school one of my professors had a room literally full of stones--shelf after shelf--scavenged from creeks and rivers. These showed what could occur naturally. He studied them, and so of course so did we. For comparison we studied archaeological sites and what was found in them, and we learned to fashion stone tools ourselves.

All of this shows the kinds of processes that may be necessary to infer design from an unfamilar object.

I don't see any of that coming from creationists or ID proponents. They are much more likely to conclude design for any unfamilar or complex item, or for any item they don't understand, and there are a lot of those as most creationists won't take the time to learn much of any science and what they do learn is considered invalid if they have any biblical or scriptural beliefs to the contrary.

So, no. I have no trust in any scientific pronouncements made by creationists or ID proponents. When you come down to it, they are doing the exact opposite of science: belief first and heck with evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Genomicus, posted 10-07-2016 4:38 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021