| padib said: I don't understand how Evolution is more scientific than ID. They battle on the same fronts: forensics, history, archaelogy, biology... |
What matters is not on which fronts they battle but what tools they use. Evolution uses scientific tools, ID doesn't.
It would be like saying "I don't understand how the French army is more French than the British army. The battle(d) on the same fronts." (ok, not true since l'Entente Cordiale but you get the idea).
| padib said: It's not because one is founded on the existence of an intelligent higher power that it is less legitimate than one based on the inexistence of anything metaphysical. |
I would say that it is not less legitimate as a religious belief. But as a scientific theory the introduction of an unnecessary and undisprovable component makes it not a less legitimate theory but not a scientific theory at all.
The problem is not with people wanting to believe in intelligent design but with people trying to pass of their belief as being scientific.
| padib said:
For anything that ID will call upon the higher power to explain (e.g. creation), Evolution will use it's own unproven explaination: material ex-nihilo. How is it more scientific? It's all side-taking on that front if you ask me. |
First, material ex-nihilo would be the big bang theory, not evolution. The evolution theory applies to living things (and even then, only to how they changed over time, not how they originated; that would be abiogenesis), not to where the material they are made of comes from.
Second, there are plenty of things that evolution explains with natural processes that intelligent designs invokes a higher power to explain. An example would be in one of my former posts where I explained how information can be created by natural means. ID would say trichromacy was designed by an intelligent agent whereas evolution shows that the evolution between bichromacy and trichromacy can be done with a simple gene copy coupled with a gene mutation.
Now I am not saying that the theory of evolution explains everything yet (or that it ever will, it might not be the only mechanism) but it is the theory that best explains the things it undertakes to explain so far. The vast majority of scientists concurs with me on that.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
