Comments on: Scott Adams on Intelligent Design

By: applejacks

applejacks — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 03:22:28 +0000

Just take a look at a single cell … the complexity, the intricacies, the interrelated parts. As Michael Behe points out in his book, Darwin’s Black Box, many aspects of the cell are “irreducibly complex”: in order to evolve, multiple parts would have to occur simultaneously. This alone is a powerful question mark evolution has difficulty finding a logical answer for. ID offers a viable alternative, though fallen man in his blindness fears to consider the possibility that there just might be a great Answer out there in the vast unknown.

By: momtoast

momtoast — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:09:46 +0000

I like the way Scott Adams has analysed the situation. I agree that neither side can be considered a scientific theory. At some point, both sides must accept certain premises by faith. I personally don’t think either side should be taught in a science class (philosophy, religion, sure, but not science). He’s got both sides pegged perfectly, they misrepresent the other’s position and then argue against the misrepresentation.

I don’t believe in creationism because of any scientific proofs. I trust my God, and my God has told me that He created the world.

By: BenK

BenK — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 02:33:20 +0000

Actually, ID is not about plugging gaps in evolution. ID as expoused by Bill Dembski (www.designinference.com)makes a number of positive claims including:

1. It is possible, in some cases, to reliably infer intelligent design on the basis of empirical observation.

2. There are certain biological structures which meet the criteria for such a design inference.

Neither of these claims speaks to questions of common ancestry or descent with modification at all. They do, however, conflict with the claim that all biological structures can be explained purely in terms of unintelligent causes.

By: microfab

microfab — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 02:16:33 +0000

There is actually a lot of information considering a biblical approach to the geological record. The Genesis Flood (Henry Morris) is an excellent technical starting point and more recent geologic technical works seek to investigate the geological record with reference to a biblical world-wide flood. I’d refer you to the “Answers in Genesis” link for books available.

By: Matthew Tilley

Matthew Tilley — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:26:55 +0000

First — ID and evolution aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Specifically, ID attempts to fill in some gaps in evolution. As such, the two views are more like compatible philosophies than opposite ends of the spectrum. Call it magic, call it God, call it whatever you like. But it’s as the one commenter said, evolution can’t know everything, so some explanation must be given.

Second — Truth and science are not necessarily the same thing. The only person to have witnessed the beginning of the world relayed His account of it and has been quite universally discounted (and generally rejected) because no one can “prove it.”

Frankly, I prefer to listen to truth than someone’s proof (a generous description). Before you knock that perspective as so much religiosity, realize that true religion (if it is to have any real value) must have a basis in and an impact on the real world. It is where the physical and spiritual collide that truth is found.

I’d love to see someone pursue the quest of the origin of the world giving credence to both the Biblical account and the geological record — they are not mutually exclusive … my eternal destiny depends on it.

By: gordo

gordo — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:57:39 +0000

The exact same argument works against evolution: There�s a lot of science involved, but there�s no getting around the miracle of the spontaneous generation of life.

By the standard you set above, evolution is magic, not science.

No, no, no. Evolution never claims to know everything. Or that everything is even knowable - such as the universe before the Big Bang. But it doesn’t paper over those gaps with magic. Scientists continue to study, think and research, debate, seduce grad assistants, etc.

ID says- “we can’t figure out how this could come about via evolution so it must have been magic.” It can’t be studied in the lab, reproduced, or proved. Convenient, huh?

What I don’t get is how smart educated people such as Scott Adams and others I know can buy into it. It boogles my mind much more than the possibility of life crawling out of the ooze.

By: microfab

microfab — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:05:11 +0000

If you call it “punctuated catastrophism” it sounds more educated than “magic”.

By: Blog Jones

Blog Jones — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:17:32 +0000

The exact same argument works against evolution: There’s a lot of science involved, but there’s no getting around the miracle of the spontaneous generation of life.

By the standard you set above, evolution is magic, not science.

By: gordo

gordo — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:10:13 +0000

Everyone is so convinced that Darwinism must be true, that they�re unwilling to examine the possiblity of other explanations.

How do you test ID? Its science, science, science, and then SHAZAMM a miracle - then science, science, science. Let's face it, ID is magic - not science.