Debate #9

[loosechanj]

I think my lack of opposition to Intelligent Design is due to the fact that I don't see Evolution as being particularly more valid than a properly expressed ID theory. Darwin gives people who don't want to feel beholden to any higher power the comfort of living in a universe without one, whether that's reality or not.

Comments

[billemon.livejournal.com]

If it's a natural, extraterrestrial entity we're talking, it would be great if someone could propose a testable hypothesis for it.

So, if it's not "God" it's ok, in other words. No straw man; your own words.

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

Noooo...If it's not a supernatural entity whose existence is unverifiable, it isn't rejected right out of the gate by science. Aliens are at least a naturalistic explanation. If you're saying God is a supernatural entity, then, yeah, he has no place in science. That doesn't mean that he doesn't exist, just that any explanation that invokes Him will get chucked in the garbage.

[billemon.livejournal.com]

But the moment you say you'll chuck the explanation that invokes Him in the garbage you deny Him any chance to exist, in your world. That's what I'm getting at.

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

No, I'm simply disallowing the use of Him as a scientific explanation for observable phenomena.

He might still be out there. Reasonable people can disagree over whether there is a divinity, a soul, an afterlife, spirits, and so forth. Best to take it to Theology or Philosophy 101, not Biology 101.