having a god that we cannot even start to comprehend is much much more difficult in terms of explanation how things work than not having a god and simply using logic and observation to deduce that energy+time will be enough to create what we see in the universe.
This is another case of the ambiguity of Occam's Razor that I was talking about before, though more eloquently stated than either of my examples.
All I have to say to the rest of it is mutation != evolution. Evolution is a series of mutations which results in a new species. This has yet to be seen in nature.
The problem with ID as far as I can see is that it seems to violate Occams Razor.
When you get into discussions as complex as this, "Occam's Razor" can get pretty subjective. For example:
Which is more feasible: that mankind evolved through a natural process that we don't yet fully understand; or that some infinite omnipotent being that we could never even begin to understand, for reasons beyond our comprehension, created the universe and everything in it without leaving a single shred of evidence that he had done so or for what purpose?
Or conversely:
Which is more feasible: that all life spontaneously and coincidentally emerged from a puddle of primordial ooze somewhere untold hundreds of trillions of years ago, and through an extraordinary series of further coincidences survived and evolved into billions of discrete species which cohabitated to form an intricate network of interdependency; or that the world was simply created by intelligent design to work the way it does?
It's all in the wording, and as always people will arrive at the conclusions they set out to find. It is worth noting, however, that science has not yet witnessed evolution in action. Until it does, evolution will continue to be no less a theory than creation.
Slashdot Mirror
having a god that we cannot even start to comprehend is much much more difficult in terms of explanation how things work than not having a god and simply using logic and observation to deduce that energy+time will be enough to create what we see in the universe.
This is another case of the ambiguity of Occam's Razor that I was talking about before, though more eloquently stated than either of my examples.
All I have to say to the rest of it is mutation != evolution. Evolution is a series of mutations which results in a new species. This has yet to be seen in nature.
The problem with ID as far as I can see is that it seems to violate Occams Razor. When you get into discussions as complex as this, "Occam's Razor" can get pretty subjective. For example: Which is more feasible: that mankind evolved through a natural process that we don't yet fully understand; or that some infinite omnipotent being that we could never even begin to understand, for reasons beyond our comprehension, created the universe and everything in it without leaving a single shred of evidence that he had done so or for what purpose? Or conversely: Which is more feasible: that all life spontaneously and coincidentally emerged from a puddle of primordial ooze somewhere untold hundreds of trillions of years ago, and through an extraordinary series of further coincidences survived and evolved into billions of discrete species which cohabitated to form an intricate network of interdependency; or that the world was simply created by intelligent design to work the way it does? It's all in the wording, and as always people will arrive at the conclusions they set out to find. It is worth noting, however, that science has not yet witnessed evolution in action. Until it does, evolution will continue to be no less a theory than creation.
I can now proudly say that my school's internet connection is literally slower than a snail (10Mbps).