RE: Is atheism a scientific perspective?
December 30, 2016 at 4:11 pm
(This post was last modified: December 30, 2016 at 4:16 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
Jor, I think you're putting too much thought into it. You're right the typical argument is basically, "if it looks designed, then it was designed". I'm not so sure that is exactly what Dembski and Behe are saying. I think they are saying that if something looks designed and there is no satisfactory competing explanation, then design should be the default position. It isn't an entirely unreasonable position but it also isn't a whole lot for a creationist to hang his hat on.
In passing I would like to point out that language referring to function implies intentionality. Properly speaking, a materialist referring to functions in naturally occurring systems would be speaking figuratively.
In passing I would like to point out that language referring to function implies intentionality. Properly speaking, a materialist referring to functions in naturally occurring systems would be speaking figuratively.
