Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
The intelligent design idea extends far beyond biology; proponents are using ID to explain all sorts of physical phenomena, such as the geometry of the earth/moon/sun system, the magnitudes of universal physical constants, the beautiful symmetry of mathematical physics.
|
I wasn't aware of this, but after a bit of research I see that this is, in fact true. Some proponents of ID see it as encompassing more than just biological aspects. I can see where you're coming from now. Certain aspects of ID could be compatible with evolution.
That being said, I think you'll agree that the biological aspect of ID is the really the meat of the matter--it's what Kansas Board of Education and Flying Spaghetti Monsterists have gotten all excited about! ID proponents are claiming that ID is an alternative theory to evolution--I think it's the ID ideas that are directly in conflict with evolution that are of interest to most people.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
I understand that; my response is that the evidence outlined in your previous post would seem to be impossible in theory to collect: you would need to have complete, 100% understanding of every natural agency, and every combination of natural agencies
|
not at all. see methods 2 and 3: i would accept, as proof, finding the designers and asking them questions about how they did it, finding specialized tools that were used in the creation of various organs/animals, finding detailed notes regarding the design progress, perhaps with copies of prototypes.