I'd say the quality of the arguments, the evidence and the statistics, are much more important than whether a group is in the minority or majority, if you're talking about what's scientifically correct!
What I mean is - for example: If intelligent designers were in the huge majority or there were only like 50 of them in the world - either way, huge majority, or huge minority - its still evidently bad science. Because its unscientific. God of the gaps and irreducible complexity is unscientific. The IDers are postulating a supernatural creator - they are the ones that needs to give evidence. Not merely saying: "Oh! you haven't got evidence for how that came to be yet/I don't think you have yet!". The evidence comes later. And what if the evidence could never be found because its so hard to explain? or it took a very very long time? Why on earth would postulating God be a solution? That's ridiculous and jumping to conclusions. Not scientific!
That's in the matter of science. And existence claims are scientific claims. If I told you, CR, the FSM exists - it would be absurd to believe it without any evidence - or to believe its 50/50 because it can't be proved or disproved. Because the burden of proof is on the believer, on the one making the claim! And you can't prove a negative!
And if I said the FSM created the universe - it would have to be a lot more complex and improbable than the universe itself! To exist right from the start before the universe and be capable of designing it! As with God
If the universe needs an explanation why doesn't God need an explanation?
What I mean is - for example: If intelligent designers were in the huge majority or there were only like 50 of them in the world - either way, huge majority, or huge minority - its still evidently bad science. Because its unscientific. God of the gaps and irreducible complexity is unscientific. The IDers are postulating a supernatural creator - they are the ones that needs to give evidence. Not merely saying: "Oh! you haven't got evidence for how that came to be yet/I don't think you have yet!". The evidence comes later. And what if the evidence could never be found because its so hard to explain? or it took a very very long time? Why on earth would postulating God be a solution? That's ridiculous and jumping to conclusions. Not scientific!
That's in the matter of science. And existence claims are scientific claims. If I told you, CR, the FSM exists - it would be absurd to believe it without any evidence - or to believe its 50/50 because it can't be proved or disproved. Because the burden of proof is on the believer, on the one making the claim! And you can't prove a negative!
And if I said the FSM created the universe - it would have to be a lot more complex and improbable than the universe itself! To exist right from the start before the universe and be capable of designing it! As with God
If the universe needs an explanation why doesn't God need an explanation?
