RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 25, 2015 at 8:54 am
(This post was last modified: January 25, 2015 at 8:56 am by Tonus.)
(January 25, 2015 at 4:27 am)Heywood Wrote: Apology accepted. Too answer your question the argument I presented doesn't get you to God. The only conclusion you can draw from it is that evolutionary systems require intellects to come into existence. That intellect doesn't have to be God-like because it is obvious that human-like intellect is sufficient.It strikes me as a sort of "gaps/prove a negative" hybrid. "If everything of this type works this way, then this other thing of the same type must work that way as well. If you cannot prove that it doesn't, then I will assume it does."
I don't know why anyone has been chasing you around this tree so long, aside from serving as an example of what happens when more than one person wants to get the last word in.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould