Subject:
|
Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:09:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2908 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> ...
> If you wish to say that the designer is God, then you've acknowledged that ID is
> a religion and should not be taught as science. If you wish to say that the
> designer is some other entity, then I invite you to present your observational
> evidence of this designer. And remember--it's not enough to say "we can't
> figure out this bit, so someone must have designed it." And if you can find no
> conclusive, positive evidence that a designer exists, then you cannot include
> that designer in your scientific models of the universe or of evolution. To do
> so would be an invocation of faith, which is contrary to the practice of
> science.
> ...
> Dave!
Surely the models can be allowed to evolve. Then models with God as the
designer can be compared with models without a designer and the results
compared. i.e. you can determine for yourself whether it makes more sense for
there to be a God who designed it all or no designer. Is this not a genetic
algorithm?
Genetic algorithms require repeated testing, not abandoning the testing by
saying "I can't prove it either way and I don't want to try it out"! Even
agnostics should continue to seek evidence and include models in the algorithm
for which they have little evidence.
The fact that there are many people who favour each type of model is more reason
to keep testing. Personally, I consistently find that it makes more sense to me
for God to have designed things the way they are, simply because of how well
everything fits together. No man could have designed it so well, so it makes
sense for there to be a greater intelligence. My repeated testing is part of
questioning my faith.
Mark
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Evolution... it never ends
|
| (...) You are free to suggest any model or theory you want. But if you want to challenge an existing scientific model, then you need to present an alternative SCIENTIFIC model. So far no one has presented a scientific model for intelligent design. (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
