Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
In terms of its own internal logic, the theory of intelligent design is perfect. Because, if for God ALL things are possible - what does it matter what some human dates a piece of rock as? What does it matter what he thinks of some fossil?
Science is the same, it is ruled by an internal logic. A logic which, for example, might say that there is no proof of ghosts when millions of humans have observed them, and yet say there is definite proof of the existence a 45 foot python even though only 500 people have observed it (as an example, you understand)
Science sets its own standards by which to test itself. Science knew that the earth was flat, that black skinned people had smaller brains, that lead could be turned into gold... maybe some of things we know today will prove equally false in the future. Science is limited by the observations that it is capable of making within its limitations and narrow frame of reference.
|
The big bang and evolution are a greater testament to the beauty of God's creation and his omnipotence than to say he simply willed the universe into existence in 6 days. If he could make lightning strike mud and end up with modern humans and other animals a few billion years later, that's pretty impressive.
Nobody important has thought that the earth is flat for thousands of years. Alchemy had nothing to to do with anything that could be considered science in a modern context, and was simply based on . Overwhelming racism did pollute intellect for centuries, but true scientists came to realize that data did not support the prevailing theories, so they discarded them. Science has led to the triumph of evidence-based beliefs over both harmless and harmful falsehoods.
Evolution is a lot more complicated than its commonly known form. Not only did Darwin propose natural selection based on his observations, the theory necessitated future discoveries to confirm it; for example, a genetic mechanism to pass traits on was necessary, and it was discovered. If you accept genetics as fact, you are also accepting that some genes are better than others and will increase an organism's chance of survival to sexual maturity, and that some genes are inferior and will decrease that chance, and that there is a certain non-deterministic chance of genetic mutation. With that established, you can only conclude that over a long enough period of time, organisms will evolve. To deny evolution is to deny genetics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
I don't doubt that intelligent design is internally consistent. That's not relevant to its truth. It's not hard to construct an argument that's logically consistent but false. |
It's simple. A non-falsifiable argument is internally consistent but may contradict scientific arguments.