eihwaz
Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML quote:
So call it an assumption, then, rather than a faith. It is well known and uncontroversial that science assumes this. The Intelligent Design notion is formed by adding ergo the universe must have been created by an omnipotent, "Intelligent Designer." The latter proposition is not, IMHO, properly a scientific question, therefore not provable or disprovable by the scientific method. I say this as a person of faith. Thank you. I am much more comfortable with "assumptions." NTW! Anytime! quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML Unfortunately, many with political agenda try to make ID a scientific concept. Agreed, this is unfortunate. As you know, ID is creationism repackaged and rebranded. It confuses science and faith, logos and mythos, which are two very different ways of knowing. Most pernicious is the corruption of science textbooks in the US. As you're probably aware, evolutionary theory is a problem mainly if not solely for Biblical literalists. Most branches of Christianity accept evolution as valid. Karen Armstrong in The Battle for God, observes (quoted in at least one other of the "science versus religion" types of threads on cm): quote:
[A] literal reading of Scripture is... a modern preoccupation, springing from the prevalence of the rational over the mythical consciousness. Before the modern period, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all relished highly allegorical, symbolic, and esoteric interpretations of their sacred texts. quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML While the question cannot be properly tested as a scientific hypothesis do you not think, even as a person of faith, that those who put it forward have the burden of providing either evidence or reason to support their claim If they're advancing ID as a scientific claim, most definitely yes. If it's a claim of faith, then no. And if the latter, it most certainly shouldn't be the basis for public policy! To me, ID is self-evident. But that knowledge -- which is not scientific or even rational -- is a matter of personal belief and experience. Not only can't I prove it, I don't see any need to. (I also have no right to impose my beliefs on anybody else.) eyesopened elaborates the difference between rational thought and faith quite cogently in a series of posts at the beginning of this thread.
|