Comment ID "Designer" - Christian, Buddhist or Bunny? (Score 1) 1634
Hi Ashton, Room.
The problem with ID is that it demands a suspension of logic, at a given point in the past, based on no reason whatsoever other than a thought that exists in an arbitrary person's head. That simply is not the basis for Science.
o For you, Ashton, I assume it is a Christian belief structure of some sort that calls for logic to suspend itself somewhere between 6,000 years ago and the full observable age of life on Earth (let's call it 4 billion years, just to be generous).
- You don't sound like a Literalist, but if you were you would be able to support the idea that the laws of physics we observe today could have been in place for up to those six thousand years, but you could not support the idea that the laws of physics were in place 10,000 years ago.
- Similarly, you would not be capable of sustaining the idea that any object was more than 6,000 years old (early human artifacts, cave paintings and such would require explanations that defy the laws of physics, geology becomes almost imponderable).
- Even as on Open-minded Christian ID Supporter, you would have to believe that the laws of physics did not apply prior to four billion years ago, since the suspension of logic that allows for Intelligent Design would have to take place after the formation of the Earth, thence at least 8 billion years after the creation of the universe (or the universe was created four billion years ago but it *looked* eight billion years old at the time...).
Specific logic prlbmes with ID:
o To deal with ID fairly and honestly you would have to be able to interchange any conceivable relgious belief-set in the place of the Assumed Christianity that goes with ID.
- Established usual suspects: each branch of Christianity; Judiasm; Islam (all three pretty similar, Adam/Eve etc...); Budhism; Hinduism...
- Smaller organized beliefs (i.e. Moonies) down to four-person Cults...
- And from the "Disagreement Does Not Indicate Anyone Is Correct" Dept: Any belief system that could be dreamed up.
- While we are on the topic: if there are any non-Christian supporters of ID out there please speak up, I'd be interested to hear your views.
Any ID argument that would support Supernatural Happenings requiring the suspension of the laws of physics two thousand (or four billion) years ago would also support the Universe being created five minutes ago with this post half-written and all of our memories of a non-existant-pre-five-minutes-ago past already in place in our heads. There is just as much a complete absense of evidence to suggest that the Universe is five minutes old as there is that the Serengeti Plain was populated late one afternoon about tea-time.
To believe ID, you have to be able to imagine that at a point in the past you would have been able to observe large, hairy mammals literally popping into existence out of thin air. If you had stoon on a hillside you could have actually witnessed trees snapping into reality, or at least witness a seedling sprouting from a piece of ground where you had just personally established there was nothing but sand with no biological soil components, not even seeds. This seems to be at least several factors less likely than the idea that rabbits used to be the end result of the flowering of a shrub.
The fact that there is no reason to believe any of these things other than (mutually-exclusive) strings of words should be enough to make it clear that this is not a topic that fits within any definition of Science.
Good luck working out your belief structures, Ashton et al (seriously, I hope it all works out for you), but there remains no logic to teaching ID to my kids in school Science class, and the ability to think logically is what they need to learn there. -cheers!
-chris
The problem with ID is that it demands a suspension of logic, at a given point in the past, based on no reason whatsoever other than a thought that exists in an arbitrary person's head. That simply is not the basis for Science.
o For you, Ashton, I assume it is a Christian belief structure of some sort that calls for logic to suspend itself somewhere between 6,000 years ago and the full observable age of life on Earth (let's call it 4 billion years, just to be generous).
- You don't sound like a Literalist, but if you were you would be able to support the idea that the laws of physics we observe today could have been in place for up to those six thousand years, but you could not support the idea that the laws of physics were in place 10,000 years ago.
- Similarly, you would not be capable of sustaining the idea that any object was more than 6,000 years old (early human artifacts, cave paintings and such would require explanations that defy the laws of physics, geology becomes almost imponderable).
- Even as on Open-minded Christian ID Supporter, you would have to believe that the laws of physics did not apply prior to four billion years ago, since the suspension of logic that allows for Intelligent Design would have to take place after the formation of the Earth, thence at least 8 billion years after the creation of the universe (or the universe was created four billion years ago but it *looked* eight billion years old at the time...).
Specific logic prlbmes with ID:
o To deal with ID fairly and honestly you would have to be able to interchange any conceivable relgious belief-set in the place of the Assumed Christianity that goes with ID.
- Established usual suspects: each branch of Christianity; Judiasm; Islam (all three pretty similar, Adam/Eve etc...); Budhism; Hinduism...
- Smaller organized beliefs (i.e. Moonies) down to four-person Cults...
- And from the "Disagreement Does Not Indicate Anyone Is Correct" Dept: Any belief system that could be dreamed up.
- While we are on the topic: if there are any non-Christian supporters of ID out there please speak up, I'd be interested to hear your views.
Any ID argument that would support Supernatural Happenings requiring the suspension of the laws of physics two thousand (or four billion) years ago would also support the Universe being created five minutes ago with this post half-written and all of our memories of a non-existant-pre-five-minutes-ago past already in place in our heads. There is just as much a complete absense of evidence to suggest that the Universe is five minutes old as there is that the Serengeti Plain was populated late one afternoon about tea-time.
To believe ID, you have to be able to imagine that at a point in the past you would have been able to observe large, hairy mammals literally popping into existence out of thin air. If you had stoon on a hillside you could have actually witnessed trees snapping into reality, or at least witness a seedling sprouting from a piece of ground where you had just personally established there was nothing but sand with no biological soil components, not even seeds. This seems to be at least several factors less likely than the idea that rabbits used to be the end result of the flowering of a shrub.
The fact that there is no reason to believe any of these things other than (mutually-exclusive) strings of words should be enough to make it clear that this is not a topic that fits within any definition of Science.
Good luck working out your belief structures, Ashton et al (seriously, I hope it all works out for you), but there remains no logic to teaching ID to my kids in school Science class, and the ability to think logically is what they need to learn there. -cheers!
-chris
