Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

By all means, prove it wrong and shower us with an abundance of evidence for your god hypothesis. It's not like this is the first time someone has asked, eh?

blindly? Only a fool would blindly accept anything. I only offer evidence that has been proven with eyes wide open.

But, I usually stay out of these things so don't expect a big debate from me.

http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html

Similarities of Embryos

The study of one type of evidence of evolution is called embryology, the study of embryos. An embryo is an unborn (or unhatched) animal or human young in its earliest phases. Embryos of many different kinds of animals: mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, etc. look very similar and it is often difficult to tell them apart. Many traits of one type of animal appear in the embryo of another type of animal. For example, fish embryos and human embryos both have gill slits. In fish they develop into gills, but in humans they disappear before birth.

http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/embryos/evidence_embryo.html

When you say "how did it all start?", what are you defining "it" as? Life, the universe or everything?

'the universe creating itself from nothing' theory. Which ironically fits the theist's scenario as well!

ID fails because even if the intelligent designer was intelligently designed you are still stuck on the question of beginnings

Quote:

By all means, prove it wrong and shower us with an abundance of evidence for your god hypothesis. It's not like this is the first time someone has asked, eh?

It's a dead end argument. We are coming from two very different approaches to interpreting our environment. You are convinced there is no creator God and so you look for natural causes.

I am convinced there is a creator God and so I look for explainations that might support that scenario.

My position is a bit more flexible than yours. I am open to both natural (physics based) explainations as well as 'supernatural' ones. You, by contrast, cannot do that. So which of us has more 'tools' to work with?

For me, evolution itself is evidence. A design of life that versatile is not a mystery to me whereas for you, it is inexplicable.

So back atcha, how did it all start? Not like it's the first time you've been asked :-)

if I find a watch, I know it had to have been made by some intelligent source even if I do not know anything about the being who made it, his parents, grandparents, or the monkey he may have evolved from.

Why would not knowing anything about the maker invalidate the obvious conclusion about the watch?

Because there is no evidence you are looking at a watch.

And even if it was a watch, how would that be more amazing/complex than the "being who made it, his parents, grandparents, or the monkey he may have evolved from"?

Contrary to FBM's assertions, there is currently no scientific explaination for how abiogenesis happened.

You're making the claim; you've got a lot of explaining to do. But when the question comes to evidence, you refuse. Wonder why? Laughing

Quote:

You're making the claim; you've got a lot of explaining to do. But when the question comes to evidence, you refuse. Wonder why? Laughing

The evidence is You. You just don't appreciate how amazing you are.

Of course, scientists and most rationalists would argue that naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered