RE: Intelligent Design
January 14, 2016 at 4:41 pm
(This post was last modified: January 14, 2016 at 4:44 pm by Simon Moon.)
(January 14, 2016 at 4:32 pm)AAA Wrote:(January 14, 2016 at 4:07 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Yes, argument from analogy. Just as bad as argument from ignorance.
So, when have you eliminated all possible natural explanations? What peer reviewed journal is your paper published?
Why haven't the majority of biologists been swayed by your oh so convincing arguments?
Face it, you already had your conclusion, and you are constantly forcing the evidence to fit.
Do we have to eliminate every possibility except design before we can accept a designer to account for the design?
Yes. Every natural explanation should be explored. And if here isn't one, yet, the answer does not then become a "god is responsible",by default.
For several reasons.
Positing a creator god has no explanatory power.
It creates more questions than it answers.
It ends the search for a possible better answer.
just for a start...
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
