SeattleGriz wrote:youngterrier wrote:
HOLY MOTHERFUCKING SHIT!!!!!!
That is terrible logic. Just terrible. Classic God of the Gaps argument. You call it random luck, but it's a natural process, which is not random but rather an algorithmic process (as in EVERYTHING THAT IS SCIENCE). You can't scientifically say, just because we don't know therefore God or "designer" because that's not how science work. You call it "shifting the goal post" but that's how science works!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your first guess is often not correct, so it's irrational to not adapt it to suit reality. That's not moving the goal posts. If anything, it's against science and the abomination of ID/creationism "science" because it's saying "we have the answers revealed right now" therefore, we will try to rectify every future discovery to fall in line with it, even though our current "discovery" isn't even verifiable now.
Do you know how terrible that is? You're essentially saying that we must always go with our first impression, and never say we're wrong on something when evidence to the contrary proves it.
Don't take this the wrong way, and I know it's kind of weird, but as someone seriously considering going into the science or educational field, I'm almost offended by the bold because that philosophy on reality has not solved any problems and in fact created a million more, by discouraging skepticism, the scientific method, and encouraging dogmatism to replace the gaps. By having that dogmatism there, you make it harder for science and society. to actually learn new things
I didn't say one should believe in an intelligent force because they can't prove a proposed evolutionary theory. What I said was that at this point, because the theory of how life got started is constantly changing with new science findings, you would be better off believing an intelligent force gave life a push. Whether you agree or not, at this point, it has just as much merit.
I understand the God of the gaps argument and that isn't what I was saying. But what most on this board are overlooking is that there are some pretty smart people with PhD's out there hammering the weak points of evolution. I realize that has to be the most annoying dissent out there. Always pointing out the known weak points, while not being able to offer up a provable competing theory.
That's a load of horse shit actually.
Just because I can't prove a certain position is right, does not mean you are proven right. We're making claims about the beginning of life, and for them scientifically valid they must have evidence to support such claims. Scientifically, what is proposed now is more supported than "God did it" because there is no evidence for that and there can never be really. You can philosophically choose to believe it, but again it doesn't make you right or "more reasonable" it's like rejecting string theory because it isn't quite concrete yet and saying the flying spaghetti monster gave birth to 7 million universes, and we are just one. Your conclusion is no more rational, in fact it is less rational because it has no foot to stand on. Furthermore, if your god is just a god of the gaps, he's nothing but a pocket of ever-receding scientific ignorance. As soon as the origin of life is discovered scientifically, you will immediately be the equivalent of a flat earth creationist. To say you were a creationist in Newton's time, but once Darwin developed his theory you came to accept it, does not give credence to your first view. It just means you were brainwashed at the time into believing something that was unproven. You can blame it on the times, and that's fair, but we know better now. One thing is universally certain, you can never claim things that are unproven or unprovable to be "more rational" than things that have evidence to support them, even if said evidence does not have a conclusive theory.
As for evolution, again, ID is full of shit. Evolution has holes in it, sure, no one denies that. You know who especially doesn't deny it? Evolutionary biologists! All of the legitimate problems with evolution are discussed, debated, hypothesized, etc in their circles. The "problems" IDers bring up, such as the Flagellum, are in fact not problems and often mischaracterizations, falsehoods, or just lies about evolution. The origins of the ID movement are nothing but creationists trying to get their "theory" taught in schools, and there is well documented evidence to support this. They have the freedom to publish any scientific paper they wish in literature to be scrutinized, but they have not done so. There have actually more papers published criticizing ID than any theories. They had the opportunity to testify in court, but most of them turned it down, and the ones who did were humiliated. In short, all of the institutions that give credence to ID have in their organizational statements stated that their intent is to prove ID, not prove truth, but to proof their presuppositions.
To summarize my argument:
and on a side note, what's so crazy about coming from primordial ooze? If the contents of said ooze can be duplicated and it be shown to have some sort of life arise as a result (and such test be verified multiple times), I honestly don't see anything crazy from such an assertion
