Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
All I really care about is defending the point of view that there is a rational basis for seeing design, and therefore the work of a creator. Not that the evidence is compelling to the point where no one has a choice.

But all the sources you use say the evidence is compelling. That is certainly the claim Behe makes with irreducible complexity.

I realize that those coming from a way of looking at the world that does not allow the existence of the supernatural will not see design. How could they? I can't argue with them . . . we live in different worlds.

I can't speak for anyone else but that isn't my problem. I know many scientists who readily see design and God in the universe. But they recognize the distinction between science and faith. What I'm opposed to are people arbitrarily redefining science just to fit their theology. And I'm also bugged by bad reasoning.

FYI, I find Kenneth Miller's reconciliation of his faith and science more convincing and intellectually honest than Behe's.
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.