@farmerman,
Quote:All youve done in that conclusion, is assumed that absolutely everything is under some Almighty control. SO it is neither truly abiogenesis nor EVOLUTION.Its biblical style creationism.Science isnt in the business to do that stuff, its merely trying to understand how it all happened and by what means.
All I've done is present an argument for Intelligent initiation of the universe and of life by presenting one interpretation of the patterns I am observing in the scientific data. I have presented (what I think a number of scientists would consider reasonable from the post presented earlier # 6,572,675) a logical and reasonable conclusions in my posts from a purely scientific perspective.
Your point of view is presented from the frame of reference provided by the point of view we are most familiar with which is, what we can sense at the surface of atoms with our sensors in a laboratory by trying to replicate abiogenisis. (quantum mechanics). I pointed out that the intelligence of the scientist is outside the experiment and is contributing to the outcome of the experiment, so a different frame of reference must be taken to acount for that.
My point of view is that for the pattern to hold true for the entire scope of the experiment when the scientist through intelligence establishes the parameters for abiogenisis of life in the lab, likewise we must assume that an intelligence established the parameters for the abiogenisis life in the earlier universe is also a logical and likely hypothesis. This requires a change of reference which would be a more universal view similar to what Einstein did with Relativity. (notice, there is still no mention of religion on my part).
You seem to be telling me that science should be biased against using that point of reference because it is religious. I did not mention the bible. (even though most people believe it is a valid forensic source, and forensics is real science)
My question is, "what religion is it that I promoted in my interpretation of the evidence? "
So far the only people presenting evidence from a more universal reference point are the fundamentalists Christians at the Discovery Institute that do a very poor job at interpreting the forensic data in the bible and in science. (their point of view of the designer (from the bible only) is not universal either.
Why aren't nonreligious people attempting to explain things from this point of reference.
Quote:As I said earlier, you oughta get crackin, because noone here seems to be buying your sales pitch.
The Discovery Institute was cracking at Baylor University. The faculty Senate pressured the management of the university to end the program. If the Discovery Institute was doing a poor job then arrangements should have been made to improve the program, not eliminate it.
What forensic methods and sources a scientist chooses should be up to the scientist, not the faculty senate.
(I chose a Catholic Point of view because the word catholic means universal and after much research found out it is more universal. Mostly because it incorporates natural law, science and traditions along with the bible).
Same thing with the teaching of intelligent design in the public school. I am not telling you to teach and research from a universal (Relatavisitic) point of reference exclusively, I am asking to teach it alongside a quantum mechanical point of view to help eliminate biases and improve interpretation of the data.
Local school boards should decide, not a district court judge.
Is that agreeable with you?
