The real point of any science is to try to find rational ways to explain what we see and experience. Gravity helps explain why we don't fly off this spinning ball, but then it also (almost magically) explains why and how planets orbit stars and satellites orbit planets and a whole lot of other things (including our sense of balance).
The Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory, attempts to explain our trillions of actual observations of what life is, what forms there are, how they are related, what forms there were (i.e. exist as fossils only, with no living examples), and how all this happens. It also tries to explain why the fossils of life forms past appear only separately in the geological strata -- the "written history" of the earth itself.
For most (actually, nearly all) people in the sciences, ToE does this with absolutely stunning accuracy. That makes it -- for them at least -- kind of compelling.
So, let's allow, for the sake of discussion, that ToE is wrong and Intelligent Design is the correct "scientific theory." Well, how might we examine that? We could, of course, do what science always does, and ask, "how does ID explain those things that we observe?"
So, let's propose some questions to see how well it might do that -- and alternately, whether it might not do it very well. I'll post some, and encourage others to think of more in this thread -- but most of all, I'm hoping that the supporters of ID, instead of saying "ToE is impossible" (which is what we always get), instead try to live up to their own belief in their theory, and actually try to answer the questions asked.
I'll start with one of the most obvious questions that I think needs explaining if ID is true:
The Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory, attempts to explain our trillions of actual observations of what life is, what forms there are, how they are related, what forms there were (i.e. exist as fossils only, with no living examples), and how all this happens. It also tries to explain why the fossils of life forms past appear only separately in the geological strata -- the "written history" of the earth itself.
For most (actually, nearly all) people in the sciences, ToE does this with absolutely stunning accuracy. That makes it -- for them at least -- kind of compelling.
So, let's allow, for the sake of discussion, that ToE is wrong and Intelligent Design is the correct "scientific theory." Well, how might we examine that? We could, of course, do what science always does, and ask, "how does ID explain those things that we observe?"
So, let's propose some questions to see how well it might do that -- and alternately, whether it might not do it very well. I'll post some, and encourage others to think of more in this thread -- but most of all, I'm hoping that the supporters of ID, instead of saying "ToE is impossible" (which is what we always get), instead try to live up to their own belief in their theory, and actually try to answer the questions asked.
I'll start with one of the most obvious questions that I think needs explaining if ID is true:
- There are literally thousands of life forms that by their very nature cause immense suffering -- and death -- to many other life forms (including humans, guilty and innocent, very young and very old) quite apparently at random. The list is simply enormous and the suffering often terrible beyond description. So, I ask myself, why would a Designer fashion me -- and at the same time something that can cause me unbearable agony and eventually destroy me? And not just me -- the newborn child who can't possibly be guilty of anything warranting such pain, not to mention the grief of family. If you accept ID, there must be an intelligent, or intelligible answer to this. The theory of ID should be able to explain it. The ToE, by the way, can explain it with almost trivial ease.
- Somebody, earlier in this thread, said something like "if ToE is true, then we would have an appendix or wisdom teeth." Apparently this means he thinks that those are artefacts mandated by the Intelligent Designer. There are many other things that are sub-optimal about our design(eyesight and blind spot, dangers of giving birth to a large-brained baby, etc.), and yet an Intelligent Designer should not be expected to choose bad designs, and a perfect designer should select only optimal designs. This is clearly not the case with the human body. Blind selection by ToE would be expected to produce frequently optimized designs, but hardly ever optimal ones -- which is exactly what we see. So, how does ID explain why we are as we are?
- The question of why the evidence of life that has existed is so stratified cannot be ignored. Layers happen in chronological order, and nobody gets to insert one geological layer underneath another one crust of the earth. And the fossils found in those layers -- all over the earth -- show a clear progression of species. So, if ID is true, we need an explanation for why the Designer tried so very hard to fool us. ToE, of course, provides a perfectly rational explanation, but does ID?
