The limitations of science (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, June 24, 2010, 03:15 (5265 days ago) @ David Turell


> > The article linked to by clicking on "non-intelligent design" is:
> > 
> > http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.2/8969
> > 
> > Which defines "intelligent design" in a very clear way, but not I suspect, one which DT will accept, since his God works in more mysterious ways, his wonders to disguise as accidents of evolution.
> 
> Everyone, please read this abstract. Avice presumes to know the 'best design' because he would not do it that way. We've seen this same approach before in the atheists claiming that the octopus eye is better than ours by looking at design, which is patently wrong when physiology is studied.-But remember. Biologists view ID as: -1. A front for creationism. The DI is evidence enough for that, and it will forever taint ID research until it's better elements wise up and divorce themselves from this bankrupt organization. -2. As a front for creationism, outlier theologies such as yours are patently not considered. Think of Dawkins, who typically argues against what is essentially mainstream theology; because "Those are the claims that are being made." While it is true that your theology (if it can be called that) suffers far less things to assail it, it also provides no way to make a bona-fide conclusion. And... very few people in America share a theology such as yours. From a religious perspective, you offer an argument for a deity that removes all capability to be connected to it. Other theists aren't likely to back your argument. (Frank doesn't count: two men don't make an army.) -I will assert here (as I have before) that if a human being can design any one thing in a simpler manner than how it appears in nature; than it means that man is smarter than God, plain and simple. If that design can be transplanted into a living organism, it gives life to my claim and further hurts any argument that God is a UI. (And if God isn't a UI, it isn't really worth much of anything.) -Again, I don't claim to have the answer, but at least from what I've seen argued here--and elsewhere--neither does anyone else.

--
\"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.\"