One thing wrong with ID. I'm happy for anyone to post here, including Jorge.

[rwatts]

ID is essentially an idea about supposed supernatural designers which is based on what actual human designer do.

So, because human designers design and make complex things, then if something complex is seen in nature, something complex that humans did not design and make, then a supernatural intelligent designer must have designed then made it.

A problem with this line of reasoning is that humans also design and make very simple things such as widgets.

Therefore if ID actually explains the complex, it ought also be able to explain the simple or the relatively simple as well. By "explain" I mean do so on it's own terms without appealing to the natural, in the same way it implicitly claims to be able to explain the complex without appealing to the natural.

So here is a relatively simple system which can be explained by natural processes:-

Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins

What is the ID explanation? If ID can explain the complex in ways that the natural cannot, then surely it can also explain the above, in ways that the natural cannot?


+++++

Religious faith which understands science and can accept it and incorporate it, is a reasonable faith. Religious faith which inspires its followers to these kinds of actions:-

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Hyvong - journey-towards-hope

- is essentially untouchable.

However, like anything, religious faith has it's downsides and ID is one of those.

[shunyadragon]

I am a theist and believe God Created by natural methods.

God is not an engineer and does not design,
God is a Creator and Creates.
Ancient myths and legends are a product of the human mind.
Natural science is a witness of how God Creates.

[rwatts]

I am a theist and believe God Created by natural methods.

God is not an engineer and does not design,
God is a Creator and Creates.
Ancient myths and legends are a product of the human mind.
Natural science is a witness of how God Creates.

That makes reasonable sense to me.

And there is nothing necessarily wrong with myth either. It can be a create way of making a point.

[shunyadragon]

That makes reasonable sense to me.

And there is nothing necessarily wrong with myth either. It can be a create way of making a point.

Myths and Legends have their role in many ways in society and culture, but not in considering anything remotely as an accurate witness of history and science.

The main problem is ID is used to manipulate science to justify a religious agenda.

[rwatts]

Myths and Legends have their role in many ways in society and culture, but not in considering anything remotely as an accurate witness of history and science.

The main problem is ID is used to manipulate science to justify a religious agenda.

That darn spell-checker:-

"a create way of making a point" should be "a great way of making a point".