Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
There is a simple reason that ID won't accurately argue or debate the age of the earth. Every time biblical creationists tried to argue their case while integrating it modern scientists, they had their heads handed to them on a plate. ID- rather cleverly, I might add, refuses to argue for anything other than ID or more importantly- anti-evolution. By narrowing the focus of ID to exclude the bundling approach to science- that is the notion that all of the facts that science offers must be compatable with all the other facts and theories, ID refuses to engage in arguments that would cast doubt on ID. ID doesn't have a coherent argument for modern geology so it refuses to discuss it. I read the arguments posited by ID adherents and them seem to come down to the simple belief that lacking an explanation, science is wrong, and ID is right. What's profoundly weird is that fundamentalist christians who are also biblical literalists aren't appalled that ID "won't go there" when it comes to discussing the age of the earth and the universe. Id tries to dodge the issue by claiming that ID doens't speak to geology and do so as if ignoring geology is a virtue. ID still has to dovetail with every other branch of science. It can't. More importantly, using Dembski's own argument, he should be willing to argue for everthing that falls under his definition of "theory" in every science discipline taught. In other words, "young, flat, earth," is a valid theory and should therefore be taught in geology. Recently the "Onion" did a neat little article where ID advocates were trying to get gravity replaced by a theory they called "Intelligent Falling". Did anyone notice that Dembski indicated that the "ether theory" of light fit under his definition of theory. Now there's a modern idea that deserves revisiting!I still say that the best argument against intelligent design is "testicles".
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |