"Problem is, what you say is factually incorrect."
Prove it.
Just blathering "blah blah is a fact, without defining the terminology precisely is just hacking up hack.
A basic assumption of random ignorant chance is the foundation of modern day evolutionary theory, true or false?
If true, then prove the existence of random ignorant chance? No, saying "we don't actually know why things happen in nature, so it must be random ignorant chance" is not a statement of reality...it is just a statement of "we don't know." It is a statement that we really don't know if things are random or by ignorant chance, as it is just as possible that design is at work.
A proposition is assumed to be true, when it has not been proven true. The assumed proposition provides a possible explanation of processes we observe. Is the assumed proposition therefore true?
Can a scientist predict with full certainty that a particular existing species, especially the higher species, will necessarily evolve into a new species? Nope.
So it is just a guess. Would a first proposition of design change the facts of the process of evolution? Nope.
So why is it necessary to take a first proposition of random ignorant chance over design...or design over random ignorant chance?
Well, one reason to take design as a first proposition, is because to the naked eye, the universe looks designed. Does that mean it is designed? Nope, but it looks that way, and if we take design as the first proposition, it doesn't change the real work of scientists who study biology and the changes that take place.
So why is random ignorant chance pushed, or why is design pushed?
Agendas, opinions of what God "should" have done to design the world, ignorance masquerading as intelligence by accepting a concept of random ignorant chance without being able to show it as an existing force, law, or power working to influence change....loads of reasons, but since both could be used to reach the same position about knowledge we are in today...then there is no valid reason to favor one proposition over the other...when neither can be proved true or false.
If someone wants to believe design and programming of nature is at work, fine.
If someone wants to believe non designed random ignorance chance of nature at work, fine.
If someone wants to believe the universe is just a program that appeared out of nowhere, but the program runs on its own.
There are lots of possible beliefs, and lots of models that can be made to fit the belief chosen...but there is no knowledge of what underlying proposition is true.
Therefore, indoctrination of children into one particular belief system just seems wrong. Teach all possibilities, or just teach what we actually know for fact.
Please, just prove that random ignorant chance in is actually a fact. And claiming ignorance is not a proof.
Comment descent remains a theory, not a fact.
You confuse cold hard objective fact with theories that can't be falsified, or theories that make a first assumption that can't be proved true or false.
Saying "our model works as an explanation" and therefore is a fact...is talking about a model, not the actual process. Science is littered with models that worked, then were discarded when a different model comes along that works better, or shows the previous model to be false.
The model works equally well with an assumption that each and every process of nature is by design. The model does not require the process to be the consequence of random ignorant chance, as it could just as easily be design.
You obviously personally reject design, but you personally accept non design.
True believer you are.
Quote from stu:
Problem is, what you say is factually incorrect.
It appears rather strange if not weird to be denying fact as a way of trying to bring credibility to unsupported belief.
As if you could make the idea of intelligent design become true or possible because somewhere science does not prove every single thing, whilst intelligent design creationism proves nothing.
So no matter how unreasonable and obscure an idea, for example because one science proven by Newton doesnât apply to all levels of reality then.....ânearly anyone can erect some theory based on limited propositionsâ
Newton is proven mostly at an earthly level, Einstein proven at the lager universe, and QM at the infinitesimally small.
That is bizarrely supposed to mean the whole of nature is not being taken into account.
Clearly creationists can and do like to erect nonsense based on nothing but idiotic statements.
Apparently creationist argument amounts to this:
as science is full of practical proof and fact, intelligent design creationism which has no proof or fact any more than Jack and the Beanstalk's Sky Giant does, is equal to science, because science doesn't prove all the silly stuff made up by creationists that is not science and has no scientific evidence in the first place.
Everyone has a right to their own points of view but not their own facts.
Evolution is a fact as Gravity is a fact.
Intelligent design creationism is no fact.
Common descent within in the evolutionary process is a fact.
Intelligent design creationism is no such thing.
Therefore the creationist decides intelligent design is possible.
That really is not good argument.
