There is no positive argument or supporting evidence for ID, so the effort has to be to attack the alternative, and hope that that leaves supernaturalism as the last idea standing.
This is simply not true.
But frankly, even if the theory of evolution could be falsified, the accumulated evidence suggesting that the theory was correct doesn't go away, but would need to be interpreted in the light of the falsifying discovery, which could only be understood as a massive deception. That idea contradicts the idea that a good, loving god that wants to be known, trusted, believed and worshiped assembled our world.
It seems to me you are making an argument like most atheist, God haters, and Bible bashers make.
The argument goes like this...
Steps...
1. Why is A
2. I don't understand A
3. Therefore I'd rather B
Sort of like the so-called God-of-the-gap, they exchange - the truth for a lie.
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars. - Charles Darwin in a letter to Asa Gray (1860)
It is the general rule that larvae possess a centre of innervation for each segment. This is so in particular with the Grey Worm, the sacrificial victim of the Hairy Ammophila. The Wasp is acquainted with this anatomical secret: she stabs the caterpillar again and again, from end to end, segment by segment, ganglion by ganglion. - Darwin's French contemporary Jean Henri Fabre described similar behaviour in a digger wasp, Ammophil
As Darwin clearly understood, blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection, although on other occasions he tried to play down the cruelty, suggesting that killing bites are mercifully swift. But the Devil's Chaplain would be equally swift to point out that if there is mercy in nature, it is accidental. Nature is neither kind nor cruel but indifferent.
Source: The Devil's Chaplin - Richard Dawkins
It's just an exchange. Hence why persons are willing to believe in fairy stuff.
[GALLERY=media, 8806]Just Believe by nPeace posted Dec 18, 2018 at 3:52 PM[/GALLERY]
A Biblcal writer puts it in perspective...
Romans 1:25
They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen.
Despite the evidence all around them, that confirms that God is, they suppress that truth in an unrighteous way.
Rather than have the proper fear of God - not a morbid fear, but a reverential fear, which leads to wisdom - they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened - they dishonor God.
Also, even if creationism were in some sense more correct than the scientific theory, it remains a useless idea. I have yet to get an answer to my question posted earlier on this thread and elsewhere :
Why would we toss out a system of ideas that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture, for an idea that presently lacks supporting evidence, has no explanatory power, offers no mechanism, and is not useful?
So, I answer it myself. We wouldn't.
No you didn't.
Oh wait! Sorry. You gave yourself the answer you wanted to hear.
So even though I saw Deeje distinctively give you an answer, and I gave you an answer, you really did not want the question answered, unless it's answered with what you specifically want to hear.
Could you explain this to
@SkepticThinker, so that she might see what I am trying to get through to her.
I'm not sure what you are saying here, but the evidence always supports the conclusion reached by the scientific community because of the way that the conclusion is shaped by the evidence. The conclusion, which is always tentative and amenable to revision if new evidence surfaces making it necessary, is derived from that evidence, and is the simplest explanation that accounts for all of it..
..but you have convinced yourself otherwise, so ...
This is different from the faith-based process of starting with an unsupported claim and sifting through the evidence trying to fit it to the faith-based premise, then retrofitting that to look like it leads to a conclusion that was never a conclusion, but a premise - what I call a pseudo-conclusion trying to masquerade as a conclusion.
There you go. You just described your belief, exactly.
This is, as I mentioned earlier, what the ID people do, and why they are just spinning their wheels looking for a god that is probably not ever going to be found whether that's because it doesn't exist or doesn't want to be found. If one starts with the evidence and an open mind able to properly evaluate a sound argument and willing to be convinced by it if it seems compelling. That is the method of science, and it has worked stunningly well. What the ID people are doing is pseudoscience, and not surprisingly, their movement has been sterile.
Well, at least you described true science, and not the faith based science being promoted as scientific fact.
I also don't know what that means, but I do know that Dawkins is an rational skeptic and empiricist, not a faith-based thinker, and that his beliefs are compatible with the consensus of evolutionary scientists.
Also, Dawkins doesn't speak for anybody but himself. I only quote him when I agree with his comments, not because he said them. If he says something with which I disagree, absent a compelling argument, I remain in disagreement.
- "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Richard Dawkins
Of course, that's what all the fuss from the creationist community is about. This theory and Big Bang cosmology made atheism realistic. I'd probably have been a deist in the eighteenth century, but not today. We don't need a designer or builder god to account for the construction of the stars and galaxies, nor any of the life that may be orbiting them.
Well, you apparently have decided on your particular god, as I said before, an exchange, because you omit all of the evidence for an intelligent creator, and designer, and accept theories that cannot be tested, and break all the rules of observable science.
They support your worldview, of course.
Unsupported claims have no effect on the rational skeptic, who doesn't care what others believe, but what they know and can demonstrate. Present evidence better explained by invoking an intelligent designer, and you may be able to convince a reason and evidence based thinker that you are correct. But not with less.
Then you were correct. I didn't write Genesis.
It may surprise you to know that many skeptics are seeing the evidence for an intelligent designer, and are convinced that this is the only reasonable explanation for the evidence they see.
Hundreds of people are seeing this, on a regular basis.
Anthony Flew was just one.
Do you know why?
They investigate for themselves, rather than swallow what they are told, by those who would have them believe without real evidence.
[GALLERY=media, 8807]DarWine by nPeace posted Dec 18, 2018 at 5:01 PM[/GALLERY]