Originally posted by Stealth
perhaps it's the idea that instead of evolving from a single-celled organism billions of years ago, that someone, or something created life originally. a higher being. like when you look at a computer, you don't thinK "gee, i wonder how long it took for this computer to evolve into what it is". that's insane... you'd readily acknowledge that something or someone, or at least some entity, designed and created that computer. or that microchip. or that intricately designed watch or robot.
maybe it's the same with humans?
Ah, the old dodgy 'if a tornado hit a junkyard, would it assemble a working 747' type arguement. We have our directing creative process, though; it's called 'natural selection'. In fact, it's very similar to the ways in which computers (For example) were developed over time - the only difference is that instead of random mutation favoured by environment (to simplify), we have ideas which are favoured by success in practice. If fact, thinking about it, the computer can be a good analogy to evolution when you consider that ideas implemented in it are dropped when they don't work right, same as harmful mutations.
The only real difference, in fact, is the starting points; one is a complex calculating machine (unless you want to be anal and go back to the beginnings of mathematics, of course), and the other can be traced back to a very simple collection of amino acids; evolutionary theory, of course, is in the process of discovering how these acids evolved into proteins, etc (I'll admit my knowledge of the exact names of the compounds here is lacking). It doesn't even, when you think about it, rule out a creator force - it just concludes, based on the evidence in front of us, that it's by far the least likely methodology.
After all, evolution didn't just pop up: Id existed first, and has been found to lack the same weight of supporting evidence over decades and decades of study. (you can say perhaps that ID doesn't require evidence by it's supernatural nature, but of course that also means it cannot possibly be considered as science)
Again, that's not a scientific challenge to evolutionary theory, let alone a theory. It's an attempt to discredit it (evolution) without understanding the principles of natural selection, and without even being willing to try.
An 'idea' does not comprise a valid scientific arguement, let alone theory. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has the same scientific accuracy as this idea; in fact, it's virtually the same except that the creator is clarified as the mystical spaghetti monster, which means it's probably an even better theory as it has some form of content to it.
Originally posted by Singh
Hmm....ID?
Wouldn't it be simpler, and easier to say that an IDer would have simply put the ball rolling? i.e. set off the first particle that created the big-bang (or multiple big-bangs with us only perceiving ours?) and then left everyone alone to it's own devices and mechanics?
After all, even if we do begin at the big bang and go by evolution, something has to have set off the big KABOOM - by intent or by co-incidence.
But even such a wild idea is more logical than what ID seems to suggest.
Of course. But in doing so, the ID 'community' would have to admit that the young-earthers (for example) were wrong, splitting it. This is what happens when you have an agglomeration of belief structures masquerading (badly) as scientific theory simply to discredit another. It doesn't suit Id to actually state a concrete or testable theory for that reason (not to mention that such a theory would either be swiftly disproven, or worded so as to be unproveable)
