View Single Post
  #611   Report Post  
Fletis Humplebacker
 
Posts: n/a
Default Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?

Steve Peterson wrote:
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...

"Steve Peterson"

"Fletis Humplebacker"



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

wrote:


There are infinitely many ways to invoke God.

A statement to the effect that "This step in evolution can be
explained as the result of intervention by a pre-existing
intelligence.", would be one way to invoke God in the
context of biology.


I repeat, what is the next statement? How does a teacher follow up this
very cogent assertion?



Those aren't my words.


So give us your words. How about the first 20 sentences a teacher should
use to introduce the idea that evolution, or some other scientific theory,
has met an impasse, and cannot advance without invoking an intelligent
designer? How about the first lecture of an 8 week section? I still wait
with bated breath. You still the one that wants ID taught in school? How
about giving those poor teachers a little help?

I assert that making specific statements will allow evolutionists to
investigate and counter. And if this is the end of the argument, it
leaves hanging the question "what is it about this step in evolution that
makes it unnatural so that only a pre-existing intelligence (edited,
meant that before)(notice how this term keeps evolving) can account for
it?"

Still wondering.
Steve



I'm not the one evolving the word either. Also I said many times
that ID doesn't cripple science. I believe that was your assertion.



Of course it does. If investigation of evidence, in the fossil record or in
theory or whatever, encounters something that can be shown to be
supernatural - i.e. cannot be explained by a logical sequence of natural
events, what is the scientists next action, other than to move on to some
other question.


Waiting with ever-greater excitement.



My, my, you're getting yourself all worked up. All because you
made an assertion that you can't support. I haven't suggested
that scientific investigation stop, neither do most ID proponents as
far as I can tell. That's a straw man argument if there ever was one.