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

by David Turell , Sunday, August 30, 2009, 02:06 (5362 days ago) @ xeno6696


> 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."
> 
> 
> So how does ID separate itself from other theistic positions enough that it can claim a "better" representation of reality? - I would change the quotes: The atheist says these chance mutation reactions occur .....etc. - The IDer says: science is proving life's chemistry to be so complex chance could not have done it. - That is not the same as a theistic approach, which starts with Bible stories. My Jesuit (almost, he got married) friend always reminded me, once you accepted a few basic Catholic tenets, the rest was all logical. ID starts with the science and then tries to be logical.