The limitations of science (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, June 24, 2010, 02:56 (5265 days ago) @ David Turell

David: -Time and again, the argument "Life must be designed because it is complex" is going to be considered -1. Fallacious. If for no other reason than the rules of the game dictate that you provide unequivocal evidence. If you can't do that, it's going to look empty every time. You admit that it can't be done: and that's enough for most skeptics. (But thank you for being honest--you do more for ID than Dembski, and frankly, I've recommended your book to friends because of it.) You and Shapiro--who I read as soon as "Lucifer Principle" is done--are correct that if/when a mechanism for life is discovered, there's still plenty of skepticism left. -2. Based on the fact that science hasn't done it yet. In some respects it looks like bet hedging. But you're discounting the human spirit. Nothing is impossible where man is considered. I don't have faith in "science" but I do have faith in man. -3. Rubber chicken. Because I feel like one every time I write a post that sounds like this. I probably have written the same thing ten times. -Again, I don't accuse you of fallacy, etc. But sometimes I think someone new might be lurking. We almost had one, heh.

--
\"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.\"