The case against Intelligent Design

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Here is an explanation of the argument against Intelligent Design, in case you wondered.

I've always been puzzled as to why the concept that evolution isn't random should be seen as such a threat by open-minded scientists who presumably want to go wherever the evidence leads. The Darwin quote on the first page answers that question. They don't want to go wherever the evidence leads; they are dedicated to blind chance as the mechanism of evolution with every bit as much a priori fervor as the most fervent Creationist is to Genesis 1 as literal history.

Note the rebuttal to Dembski's theory of specified complexity. It is a classic example of what logicians call "begging the question."
Email Post

Comments

Anonymous said…
It seems that when modern day scientists set out to ask the question of "where did life come from?" or "how did life come to be?", the evolutionists artificially restrict the possible answer pool a priori. If we were to speak in the broadest manner, we could say that there are two essential answers: life arose from chance, natural processes, OR life arose from some creative intelligence. Evolutionists artificially rule out the second possiblity a priori. Arguments continually crop up about how a supposed Intelligent can't be seen or tested in a laboratory.

So a few observations: 1) how can they legitimately claim to search for scientific truth when the search is restricted to only one possible conclusion a priori? 2) if a scientific question can be raised that has (only?) two possible answers, how can only one be testable and the other not? 3) Archaeology and forensics are two scientific disciplines that actively seek explanations of data based on recognizing and quantifying the artifacts left by "intelligent designers"--present or not 4) If evolutionist's refuse the analogy of detecting design in artifacts, machines and other man-made objects to detecting it in living organisms...what is their basis for doing so? Can they deny that a designed object has detectable features of being designed?

I agree w/ you Bob... evolutionists are left begging the question quite often, and I only wonder when and if the massive edifice of evolution will crumble.
9/25/2005 05:16:00 PM
Post a Comment