Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
-- what is not in direct oppositon are the propositions that (1) ID exists and (2) evolution exists, even for any particular biological structure. That's what I was referring to.
|
You mentioned you were a bit confused by my post, so I hope you won't be offended when I return the emotion: this confuses me. An intellegent designer and a process of improved functionality due to natural selection both exist for any particular biological structure? I still don't see how one can hold the concepts of intelligent design (the designer is responsible for the intricate parts of the machinery) and evolution (natural selection is responsible for the intricate parts of the machinery) to be both valid.
Quote:
|
-- I don't see anywhere in your post above (which is somewhat confusing to me) where you show how ID is "proven".
|
I never said ID was proven--only that, contrary to what you were saying, there could theoretically exist enough evidence to prove to rational folks that there is an intelligent designer responsible for the complexity/functionality of life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were saying that, because ID is a supernatural claim (which, btw, I don't think it is, since aliens could potentially be the 'intelligent designers'), that it is unprovable/unrejectable under any circumstances. I disagree. It is perfectly possible to create a test for a supernatural claim (let's say, a person claiming mind-reading or telekinesis abilities) to determine if the claim is false. Even if no test can be 100% foolproof, enough evidence could be generated to satisfy most rational-thinking individuals. The 'supernaturalness' of ID (which, again, I don't think is really a proper description of ID) has nothing to do with its provability.