Comment Re:ID IS Science (Score 1) 2443
I understand what you're trying to say here, but you're so desperate that there not be any evidence for ID that you're blinding yourself. The first point, I can see how you can get around that by calling it a negative argument. The second and third however, both have positive aspects. Consider, if there hasn't been time for something to naturally develop, then it stands to reason that there is some force encouraging it. Also, considering the complexity of design -err development intellegence can be posited.
Again, I'm out of my realm here, but when you combine this with other aspects, such as the continuing reoccurance of complex life in the geological record, when it would have been wiped out over and over again, along with - I know you don't like to think of this as evidence - the complex engines that can be found on the cellular level (these devices are similar to macro devices that humans have devleoped as well as nano devices we hope to develop, a case begins to appear. I'm not saying that it's an open and shut case, but to say there's no evidence demonstrates a desperation that I think inappropriate.
I concede that there is a metaphysical/philosophical element to ID, but any affirmation of truth requires some set of metaphisical presuppositions. This cannot be removed from any sphere of study scientific or otherwise. At a minimum we must echo Descarte "cogito, ergo sum".
Again, I'm out of my realm here, but when you combine this with other aspects, such as the continuing reoccurance of complex life in the geological record, when it would have been wiped out over and over again, along with - I know you don't like to think of this as evidence - the complex engines that can be found on the cellular level (these devices are similar to macro devices that humans have devleoped as well as nano devices we hope to develop, a case begins to appear. I'm not saying that it's an open and shut case, but to say there's no evidence demonstrates a desperation that I think inappropriate.
I concede that there is a metaphysical/philosophical element to ID, but any affirmation of truth requires some set of metaphisical presuppositions. This cannot be removed from any sphere of study scientific or otherwise. At a minimum we must echo Descarte "cogito, ergo sum".
