RE: Intelligent design science?
March 9, 2012 at 2:41 am
(This post was last modified: March 9, 2012 at 2:42 am by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
The watchmaker's/teleological argument is the basic argument used by creationists and thoroughly debunked. Do some reading,perhaps starting with the Wiki article below.
The use of sophistry is not using science to prove anything. If god is to be be proved using science, that obliges the use of scientific method. IE the provision of credible empirical evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
Quote:A person another forum is arguing if you make calculations of why a pencil cannot be made from natural means, inferring it to be designed would be science.
The use of sophistry is not using science to prove anything. If god is to be be proved using science, that obliges the use of scientific method. IE the provision of credible empirical evidence.
Quote: There are three main arguments against the Watchmaker analogy. The first is that complex artifacts do not, in fact, require a designer, but can and do arise from "mindless" natural processes (as in the "Infinite Monkey Theorem"). The second argument is that the watch is a faulty analogy. The third argument is that the watchmaker is arguably a far more complex organism than the watch, and if complexity proves intelligent design, then the question arises: who designed such a complex designer?
Another argument is that teleological order is different from, and more strict than definitions of order using the concepts of entropy used in the physical sciences. Any complete congelation of the individual elements of a watch may properly be called, in a physical sense, the assembly of a watch. However, teleological order demands that the gears of a watch turn, and that the watch keep time by motion of the hands, and even that the time measurement be relatively accurate. Such requirements select a minuscule set of the possible assemblages of the elements of the watch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
