Friday, February 20, 2009

 

Bad Arguments for ID # 2362


From a Letter to the Editor in the Agusta (Georgia) Chronicle:

Science means the testability of a hypothesis -- well, until a scientist can bring me a dragonfly he created out of organic soup, I'll stick with Intelligent Design and an intelligent designer. My faith is built upon better evidence than a king-sized, fossilized soup bone -- or even DNA look-alikes.

Letssee: until a scientist can bring me a star he created out of hydrogen, I won't believe the sun is powered by nuclear fusion generated at its core by gravity, I'll stick with Intelligent Burning and an intelligent burner ...
.

Comments:
"...well, until a scientist can bring me a dragonfly he created out of organic soup, I'll stick with Intelligent Design and an intelligent designer."

But wouldn't a scientist deliberately making a dragonfly out of organic soup be precisely an example of intelligent design?

Makes a perverted kind of sense in a way. If you bring me evidence of evolution, I'll believe in ID. But I'll believe in evolution if you bring me evidence of ID.
 
"Computer scientists at MIT tell us that ... there isn't enough time to develop a human eye by trial and error ..."

Just like the rocket scientists at NASA proved that the sun stood still for Joshua.

Tom S.
 
I'm still a believer in Intelligent Falling myself.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .

Organizations

Links
How to Support Science Education
archives