richardhutnik said:
I know it belongs here, but ehwy even write about such things and as a community who have a common interest in what they think, about creationists or creationsim? I even wonder what the heck about 2012. You aren't going to get answers that you really seek. As far as what I wrote, it was in response to "AT LEAST uninformed". The least condition is uninformed. As for the more stronger condition? Is it outright delusional, or worse? As far as being "uninformed" goes, there is a LOT of work that needs to go into the study of both the origins of life and how species come about. There are elements found in species that would make one wonder if unguided mutations plus natural selection are sufficient to bring about. A book like, "Darwin in the Genome" goes into how some aspects of evolution might very likely be guided by the species itself, as the paths a species changes, and the mechanics governing it, might indicate that the evolution adopts to the environment in strategic ways. Also, with genetic engineering coming about, if someone has argued there hadn't been Intelligent Design in the past, it will be found that Intelligent Design is likely to become more and more relevant. I would suggest that study into detecting this would be helpful. I would make it as part of the school of cognitive science personally. Ok this, I will say as to what I am. I would fall in the Christian camp, and believe that unguided mutation plus natural selection are insufficient to explain how all life came about. I believe arguments ID brings up have merit, but they don't have the tools to answer them. I also find that to say your world view MUST disallow a Creator who intervenes in the universe, for it to be REAL science, is to not to be intellectually honest. Science should allow for all possibilities, even if it says the possibility is very rare. When I hear someone say they would consider engineering of biological life on Earth more plausible, if it is done by aliens from another world (eventhough we have NO evidence of intelligence being anywhere else but Earth), that is not being intellectual honest. That view is one with a distinct anti-theistic bias based on what one is comfortable with, far more than what is. |
To your second para, "intelligent design" isn't actually a scientific concept, and referring to genetic engineering as a form of this is not true.
Third para- science is about provable, tangible results. Of course you can have unsubstantiated theories, but its not science. Evolution has factual basis, belief in the world as 6000 years old etc does not. Big bang is supported, but what came before that is guesswork. It is not science, its a theological question. I cba to reply anymore, got physics revision to do :)
