To follow up:To say that proposing a designer of life says nothing about the designer is completely ignoring the unity of scientific endeavor. While we all recognise that some systems possess higher order features that others do not, there is also a consensus that sytems should be explicable in common terms, that is to say that chemistry should be explicable in terms of quantum mechaninics, that cell biology should be explicable in terms of chemistry, and that physiology should be explicable in terms of cell biology. None of this denies that physiology is not reducible to cell biology, because higher order process emerge from the events of cell biology (eg the circulation of blood) but a phenomenonthat is proposed in one area of science should be examined in the light of other areas of science. Hence the idea that blood circulates in humans can be examined in the light of what is known about plumbing and pumps, and vice versa. When we do so, we realise that there are properties of the vasculature that do not apply to pipes and plumbing (eg resiliant capacitance vessels) and our knowlege of hemodynamics is improved. Circulation is thus not an isolated idea. Similarly, ID must be examined in the light of all other sciences, and having done so, points you only in the direction of space aliens. I fail to see how anyone can avoid this simple point.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra