You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Theory of Evolution - it's simple. Let's get rid of misunderstandings [Small discussion]
Wow, thank you for your effort to read and to reply in so detail. I'm also leaning towards intelligent design paradigm. It's newer than old Darwin's work so it's more appealing. Also, the consciousness was not a scientific thing in his time.
Even more, as ID is not creationism nor darwinism, I think I can learn a lot from your perspective.
External actions (from another planetary system, another species, another universe in the Multiverse we are living in) are also a way of exploring this. I'm not against this way also.
My main strong point is: I don't think old Creationism is strongly enough in the modern era to sustain a valid approach. But ID could be.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Thanks!! It's a fascinating topic, and fun to explore.
Personally, I'm a creationist, for a lot of reasons. But I also have to be honest and admit that, while it's not scientifically disprovable, neither is it scientifically provable.
IMO, it's inconsistent for scientists to claim to study the order around us, observing laws that make their observations consistent, and yet claim in the next breath that it all fell into place by some cosmic accident of chance. It's statistically untenable, again IMO (and I'm in good company). And there's something super exciting about seeing the order of everything from the universe to the tiniest organism from the perspective that its design was with intent. It's these types of observations, plus the lack of evidence of evolution, that have led many scientists to embrace ID over evolution.
Another area of study in this sphere involves probability. Using algebraic formulae, the ID side points out that probability is so mathematically unlikely as to be impossible. The evolutionists counter with more about probability than I am able to interact with intelligently. :)
Regardless, IMO, the principles of irreducible complexity and specified complexity, along with the challenges of probability, are pretty persuasive. The next aspect to make it particularly challenging is the very spark of life itself. It's an unprovable, unless man can one day replicate the move from basic cells to sentient existence.
Fascinating stuff. Enjoy your search. :)