Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Martin
I'm troubled by the number of people that have been attributing some scientific basis to the intelligent design concept. This is pure religion, twisting science once again in a poor attempt to validate an unprovable hypothesis. ....
|
Well, if you say so. Your comment has placed the argument in the realm of "he said/she said".
Intelligent design is closely related to information theory - so what's less 'scientific' about that compared to evolution? The only people calling ID pure religion are those who can't stomach the philosophical predisponsitions of it's adherants - which is a patently absurd reason. That would be no different than advocating the dismissal of evolution simply because many of its proponents are not religious in the slightest.
Besides, plenty of scientists are on record acknowledging that Intelligent Design has merit. Are you going to dismiss them all as religious?
Bad form.
And besides, if anyone has 'twisted' science, it is the evolution camp. They have twisted science to the outer fringes of probability, extrapolation, and imagination - substituting them all for evidence and calling it MORE than adequate science.
IDers by and large, believe it or not, are in favor of BETTER SCIENCE, not injecting religion into this debate.
And, what's so great about a hypothesis that carries all the alleged trappings of science (evolution) but can't seem to get enough evidence together to convince 2/3 of the American Public ?
What's your answer? That they are all crazy, unscientific illiterates?
Or is it that perhaps there are some darn good, common sense, rational reasons for it?
The new age creationists have removed god from the equation and propose a conscious universe creating itself, among other beliefs. The "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics demands intelligent observership before matter comes into existence. Doesn't this conflict dramatically with Hiesenberg's uncertainty principal? QM is not my area of expertise, so more info on that and how it really applies to "intelligent design" would be appreciated.
Does changing the name from creation to intelligent design mean it is grounded in science? I say absolutely not!!
Opinions please....[/QUOTE]
