Hi randman
randman writes:
You argue that just because we do not see how something happened is not evidence for design
despite the obvious pattern of intelligence revealed, and then if shown a mechanism for intelligent design actually working on physical reality, you argue that it cannot be evidence either.
(my italics)
I think much of this argument resides on whether or not we do see an obvious pattern of intelligence revealed. I've never seen anything which convinced me. To be fair, the whole ID movement has been around in one form or another since Darwin and every example they put forward (e.g. the evolution of an eye) was eventually found to also have a natural explanation. That isn't of course to say that an intelligent designer
isn't working behind the scenes but that there's no compelling need to have to resort to that explanation.
After time and after repeated failures, ID has to come up with something fairly concrete to even begin to interest people. And yes, to me it does look like creationism-lite. So why should it be given any status in science at all until it does do something of note?
PE
This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 06-01-2005 02:47 AM
™ Version 4.2