Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to that's very similar to my objection

re: I disagree...
DALeffler — (archived)

You've got two models of biological origin. How - scientifically - do you determine which is true?

By first determining if either model cannot be true. And it's not which is true: it's if either is true.

In your mind is there *no* observation that could tell us finally if we were created as we are or if we came to be this way by a long process that followed the physical law we know? I think you are giving up too easily.

Meaning that a single observation in and of itself could *prove* creation or evolution? These models may not even be mutually exclusive of each other, particularly when one theory postulates miracles.

Now I will grant you that there's a lot of observation that confirms biological evolution. But I would assert that none of those observations refute creation. If you posit miraculous creation, then you may posit that it could create in any way it chose - even one that looks like what we see.

Or turn their approach over: make a prediction of an observation that can disprove a creation model.

I'll go you one step further: I would assert that no observation can *ever* prove miraculous creation false.

Evolutionary theory - even assumed as a fact - does not disprove intelligent design. At the very most, evolutionary theory presents the idea that an intelligent designer is not necessary; not that there isn't an intelligent design(er).

I don't see any reason why this can't be handled scientifically. I would not declare the topic too preposterous to consider.

And I don't see any reason why ID should be handled scientifically instead of philosophically. Where does ID help us if there isn't an IDer?

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (48 posts)