ID, a \"Backwards\" Philosophy? (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, August 30, 2009, 00:18 (5563 days ago)

A very powerful question I like to ask is how does ID separate itself from other theistic positions?
 
It appears to me that it is asserting a creator then finding evidence for it, whereas the scientific one is making no assertions at all. How can ID be a better explanation? - I wrote once in a paper, that it is perspective that leads a person to a conclusion. An atheist and an ID advocate look at the evidence leading to evolution. - Atheist: "You see, these chemical reactions occur without interference. Evolution needs no creator to explain it." - ID advocate: "The breadth and scope of life's complexity definitely allows us to infer that a creator exists." - Then you have MY view: Both of you gents are arguing purely within philosophical perspectives and are not actually discussing the data at all. You're discussing the result that you want, not the result that is actually there. You have to be an atheist to reach the atheistic conclusion, and some level of theist to reach the other. To someone who is truly neutral--neither sheds any light at all on the God question. - So how does ID separate itself from other theistic positions enough that it can claim a "better" representation of reality?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"