Re:Evolution of submissions (Score 1)

To argue for intelligent design as a scientific method, let's just look at the mistakes, that is evidence, is it not? Let's say hypothetically that everything in our known scope has an intelligent designer. That designer has made some mistakes, true, but also has made some incredible designs, most of which we are still attempting to understand. We are intelligent, yet not perfect. Who is to say that our hypothetical designer is not also intelligent, yet not perfect either? Who is to say that our designer is not a product of a design? In fact, it would almost make no sense at all if our designer, should there be one, is not the product of another design. Getting philisophical here, but why should we believe that intelligent design describes a snapshot of time, creating beings and rocks as they are, as if that's all they'll ever be? Evolution is a fact. Life changes, it evolves, no doubt about that. But isn't that proof of intelligent design? Why not use the evidence we have for evolution to trancend into our understanding of an intelligent designer? Even if I, as a computer programmer, could design the perfect program, it would still never be perfect unless I built within it the ability to continually change and adapt over time, surviving on its own with further contact from me at all, except for maybe a few archaic white papers that I left behind, and the occasional re-compile. An argument might be that one could eliminate intelligent designer from every sentence in my statement and still be able put the pieces together for life 'being'. In other words, if evolution occurs, then why even talk about a designer at all? The fact that evolution occurs, and has scientific evidence means that we can use it to describe systems of life, even spiritual systems and that is important. It is important for the reason that just because evolution occurs, does not mean that I can reduce it to explain how life got here in the first place. There is a scientific disconnect in being able to prove how far species can evolve. To use evolution to explain how energy evolved into all life as we know it is not scientifically based, it is philosophically based. In other words, we must use philosophy when we extrapolate the discussion to the root of origins. Therefore, the use of an intelligent designer is a plausible scientific placeholder at the least, because as we can observe, it takes life to produce life.