The Postulation of a Designer (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by Peter P, Monday, February 11, 2008, 12:31 (6129 days ago) @ George Jelliss

I'll try not to get "worked up" because maybe you're not as fundamentalist as you sound. What lit the fuse was your statement under Origin of Life: "The postulation of a "designer" to guide this process is just so over the top in improbabilities as not to be worth considering." We needn't mess around with different concepts ... let's call the designer God (Grand Old Designer ... nice one!) If the existence of God is not even worth considering, then according to you the opinions of believers (who postulate) and agnostics (who are prepared to consider the possibility) are not worth considering, and I find that offensive. Quite apart from the fact that you don't think the opinions of Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Planck, Heisenberg etc. are worth considering, your telling an agnostic like myself that my opinion is not worth considering, and in fact the opinion of anyone who is not an atheist is not worth considering. Your grounds are that in spite of the lack of any scientific concensus, you believe that life originated through a combination of accident and natural chemical processes. But your last entry is much more moderate in tone: "the most likely routes by which life may have originated". OK, that's your belief and that's fine if you put it that way. I just don't want to be told that any other view is not worth considering. That to me is bigotry. Pax?