(September 16, 2014 at 7:53 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: So again, I posed a question to you all (particularly those who accused me of strawmanning) asking about your level of confidence (0-100%) that there is no intriguing evidence pointing to intelligent design and influence. Only a few have responded, both reporting 100% confidence.That's a curious way to word the question, but perhaps it's the more accurate way as well. I think that "intriguing evidence" is probably a placeholder for "emotion." I find that the argument from design is more emotional than rational, and given to the sort of sloppy and hopeful arguments that you've been putting forth in the various topics you've started.
So no, I don't find that there is any "intriguing evidence pointing to intelligent design." I am more likely to be swayed by a rational or logical argument than by an emotional one. But even that might only reduce the certainty by a few points, unless you have an argument or evidence that is compelling enough to overturn everything I happen to know or understand. You don't seem to, and "but what if this" is not compelling.
"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
