[CS-FSLUG] Re: Intelligent design...

[dmc]

> The point that I think Henderson was attempting to make is one
> relating to the falsifiability of intelligent design.  How can one
> design a test in which an intelligent design hypothesis can be put to
> the test with the possible result that it fail if it doesn't pass some
> established criteria.  (In fact, if I recall correctly, some
> organization put out a $250000US reward for anyone who can prove
> flying spaghetti monsterism false).

Bzzzzt!  Failing grade.

Requiring somene else to prove a negative in order to make
another's argument valid is a failed method based on first-year
logic and critical thinking.

The $250,000. is mine because the premise has already been
declared false by the very proposition.

Intelligent Design is far more scientifically legitimate
than the fraud perpetrated by Darwin -- intelligent design at
its essential minimum merely postulates that "the watch cannot
have ssembled itself".

Evolution has been disproved mathematically -- the necessary
probabilities of the most basic essentials of evolution reach
into the realm described by math theory as nonsense.

"God" is not required for intelligent design to be clearly
and scientifically superior to evolution, merely an intelligent
designer.

The origin of *complex* life is unprovable via scientific methodology
using evolution or intelligent design but the evidence before us
*requires* intelligent design and obviously debunks evolution.

> Without being able to scientifically prove the existance of God, one
> can't really prove the veracity of intelligent design.  The most that
> can really be done is to prove other theories highly improbable. 
> Hence, I think that the scientific method is not an appropriate set of
> "tools" for dealing with instances in which divine intervention is
> involved.

I disagree.  See above.

-- 


Blessings ... doc

       /\ /\
?(~~~{ @ @ }  Sent from
  (      *     Puppy Linux
  (        )
   ~~~~~~~~~  http://bibleseven.com
   / /   / /