Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="squeak9798" data-source="post: 6003597" data-attributes="member: 555320">Unfortunately, I think a lot of us here are aware of the ID movement (it was actually discussed some about 5 pages back).&nbsp; As indicated above in the wonderful PBS show of the Dover trial, ID is nothing but creationism relabeled and most of it&#039;s &quot;supporting arguments&quot; have been discredited by actual scientists.My question to you is; Have you ever tried to understand the problems associated with the ID movement?I haven&#039;t read the book, but I read a preview via google (so some pages were missing), but the opening chapter seemed to be arguing that 1) Humans have a Moral Law instilled in them from God, and 2) God gives actions the condition of &quot;right&quot; and &quot;wrong&quot; through this Moral Law.A philosopher many years ago had investigated this issue (can&#039;t remember who it was off hand); Are morals right because God commands it, or does god command them because they are right?&nbsp; Either answer here can create a problem for the theist.You apparently do not understand what a scientific theory is.&nbsp; The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, and the &quot;God Theory&quot; are on anything but equal footing simply because they both have the word &quot;theory&quot; in them.Scientific theory, in short, is a testable hypothesis that is supported by empirical data, scientific facts and observations.&nbsp; They are constructed to explain the data, are supported by the evidence, and can be used to make future predictions.&nbsp; If a theory does not explain the evidence or data, is not testable, or it&#039;s predictions are wrong....then it fails the test and it&#039;s discarded.&nbsp; Theories are continually being tested for accuracy.The &quot;God Theory&quot; has none of the above.Historical events will not necessarily validate the claims of religion.&nbsp; For example, evidence of a man named Jesus who lived 2000 years ago and was crucified at the age of 33 will not validate the claim that he 1) is the son of god, or 2) performed miracles.&quot;Level of complexity&quot; is not very compelling evidence (with a statement like that it seems evident you believe in the ID propoganda).&nbsp; There is plenty we know today that our ancestors no doubt could have only thought possible by an intelligent designer....but we know it today to be a matter of, well, matter.David Hume saw the flaws in the &quot;argument from design&quot; (an a posteriori argument) some 250 years ago.Science, by definition, can not appeal to an intelligent agent and the idea of an intelligent designer can not be, by definition, a scientific theory.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="squeak9798, post: 6003597, member: 555320"] Unfortunately, I think a lot of us here are aware of the ID movement (it was actually discussed some about 5 pages back). As indicated above in the wonderful PBS show of the Dover trial, ID is nothing but creationism relabeled and most of it's "supporting arguments" have been discredited by actual scientists. My question to you is; Have you ever tried to [I]understand[/I] the problems associated with the ID movement? I haven't read the book, but I read a preview via google (so some pages were missing), but the opening chapter seemed to be arguing that 1) Humans have a Moral Law instilled in them from God, and 2) God gives actions the condition of "right" and "wrong" through this Moral Law. A philosopher many years ago had investigated this issue (can't remember who it was off hand); Are morals right because God commands it, or does god command them because they are right? Either answer here can create a problem for the theist. You apparently do not understand what a scientific [B]theory[/B] is. The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, and the "God Theory" are on [I]anything[/I] [I]but[/I] equal footing simply because they both have the word "theory" in them. Scientific theory, in short, is a testable hypothesis that is supported by empirical data, scientific facts and observations. They are constructed to explain the data, are supported by the evidence, and can be used to make future predictions. If a theory does not explain the evidence or data, is not testable, or it's predictions are wrong....then it fails the test and it's discarded. Theories are continually being tested for accuracy. The "God Theory" has none of the above. Historical events will not necessarily validate the claims of religion. For example, evidence of a man named Jesus who lived 2000 years ago and was crucified at the age of 33 will not validate the claim that he 1) is the son of god, or 2) performed miracles. "Level of complexity" is not very compelling evidence (with a statement like that it seems evident you believe in the ID propoganda). There is plenty we know today that our ancestors no doubt could have only thought possible by an intelligent designer....but we know it today to be a matter of, well, matter. David Hume saw the flaws in the "argument from design" (an [I]a posteriori[/I] argument) some 250 years ago. Science, by definition, can not appeal to an intelligent agent and the idea of an intelligent designer can not be, by definition, a scientific theory. [/QUOTE]

Verification