GDR writes:
quote:
How can anyone definitively say that the change came about either with or without intelligent design.
This is an interesting question. Part of me is saying, "Science keeps out of it. It doesn't even begin to consider the possibility of 'why' but rather restricts itself to the 'how.'"
But another part recognizes that the investigation of "how" leads us to conclude that there was no "guiding force" behind it. There are no indications that anything caused species splits except the natural action of chemistry and biology.
Now, if one is willing to claim that god personally, deliberately, and consciously makes chemistry happen, pushing the atoms around with a will, then one cannot possibly deny that. It certainly seems like nobody is making it happen, but that can easily be that we don't know how to look.
For example, suppose that there is no guidance in how objects fall: Gravity is perfectly natural, not supernatural. So when I take a handful of coins and toss them on the ground, they land without any "intelligence" behind them.
Suppose I were to take an identical handful of coins and place them in the exact same pattern.
Would you be able to tell the difference?
And more importantly, would you seriously claim that it is just as likely for the coins to have been deliberately placed as to have been naturally created? After all, all of our experience with "intelligently designed" chaos is that it is anything but chaotic. And notice that in this example, the only way we were able to "intelligently" create a chaotic pattern was to take a chaotic pattern and duplicate it.
In fact, given that knowledge, we could say that at least one was designed but that even if both were designed, they came from a naturally occurring template that we haven't been presented with.
In other words, the "intelligence" is deliberately trying to mimic a natural phenomenon.
And if that is the case, why assume an intermediary? If this designer is deliberately trying to imitate a natural process and is so good at it that it always appears natural and never, ever deviates from a natural process, what is the difference between this "intelligent" process and the natural one it is imitating?
Eventually, we find ourselves asking an existential question: Is god required for everything or are there some things that happen on their own?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2