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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, August 30, 2009, 04:07 (5362 days ago) @ David Turell


> > 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. - The dilemma I see is that the idea of a creator is entrenched in our thought and culture, so how can we really tell that we're not working towards a philosophical goal vs. actually following evidence? Especially when the conclusion we reach is still ultimately debatable? You said yourself that your conviction is a leap of faith. Doesn't that mean that you've already reached a conclusion and are now justifying it?

--
\"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.\"