I think we need a part 2 of the thread: Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution
In the former thread: http://
EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->
EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory Percy summed his position this way:
Percy:
The argument from design is obviously the most convincing creationist argument - millions worldwide have been persuaded by this argument. Of course, almost none of them are scientists, and the argument from design hasn't yet been formulated into any testable scientific form, but that's not what this thread is asking.
You suprised me Percy. I sense some genuine understanding of the issues on your part. I apologize for lumping you in with other members and Admins. I am still far too reactionary myself to be an honored participant. I try...
What I wanted to remind you of, is that the only reason they are technically
'not scientists' is because they are not confining themselves to the box of 'methodological naturalism'. So it is true that ID is not science. That is what the court is looking at.
The argument and the fight is really over what the appropriate definition of science is or should be...
Evolution is also not testable, it remains to be 'theo' or theory (a contemplation of the divine order or logos).
There is another tool that can be used to test an ideas power and accuracy; The test of philsophical coherence. In this sense, ID arguments are utterly devestating to evolutionary theory.
The assumption of materialsm (that only natural explanations are valid) has actually been a totally rediculous assumption since the discovery of the quantum realm. I mean here we are doing all of this postulating on the material world, when matter itself is ultimately non-material.
The naturalists among us simply must come to terms with the reality of the natural world that is 'other than material.' It is not unnatural, it is only supernatural. And it is not supernatural ultimately, it is only supernatural
to us at the present time. For heavens sake, even gravity is still very much a mysterious and supernatural force. That does not mean that it is irrational or unnatural. I think reality is extraordinarily rational and sensible. Far more rational and sensible than we. We're the one's in the dark, not reality.
Have I said anything worthy of discussion in a new thread onthe same issues?
ps. I'd sure like to be re-instated and have access to origins. I think I can actually communicate with Doddy. And I'll make extra effort to hold my tendancy toward reactionary zeal. That's a tough subject for a guy with only 10th grade biology under his belt. I really want to take the focus off of preaching, because I am learni9ng so much by participating in spite of our disagreements. Debate spawns learning...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.