Invidentias
28-09-2005, 06:38
Many people here take the position ID is inherently non scientific and religious in nature. Thinking about it logically in an attempt to pull it away from religion, it seems quite easy to me. On this note i must question whether or not I have missunderstood the issues.
Isn't the only way ID and Darwins theory of evolution differ is that ID claims a planned desgin in nature (while not tryting to determine how that desgin was created) while Darwins theory of evolution makes the case that randomness in mutation has driven evolution.
The conversation as to how the planned desgine need never enter into the conversation as it is an unknown and is essentially unimportant. Systems exist in nature and thus we can accept evolution as one of these planned desgins, or by god or by aliens what have you. It seems if you really wanted.. it would not be difficult to pull ID away from the talk of religion,a nd then you have only the burend of empircal evidence for which to produce ^_^
Isn't the only way ID and Darwins theory of evolution differ is that ID claims a planned desgin in nature (while not tryting to determine how that desgin was created) while Darwins theory of evolution makes the case that randomness in mutation has driven evolution.
The conversation as to how the planned desgine need never enter into the conversation as it is an unknown and is essentially unimportant. Systems exist in nature and thus we can accept evolution as one of these planned desgins, or by god or by aliens what have you. It seems if you really wanted.. it would not be difficult to pull ID away from the talk of religion,a nd then you have only the burend of empircal evidence for which to produce ^_^