Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I don't believe you actually read what I said.
Flat earthers used only naked empiricism, which is insufficient on its own, I have mentioned that problem before when the sun revolving around the earth was believed to be fact.
Design is not creationism from my perspective, I have addressed that previously.
Creationism is mostly a product of Christianity or Christians and their world/God view.
I am not a Christian, so that is not my view.
The driving force of much of the atheistic movement is fed by anger with the Christian religion. It is west-centric. You make the mistake of lumping all design arguments into the category of Christian design arguments, implying "Sky fairy daddy" or "magic creator" or some other reactionary emotionally driven response.
You are not actually able to address the issues I am raising, because I am not trying to prove design to anyone at all. The fact that things look designed is insufficient to claim design necessarily.
My argument is that non design has no basis in actual fact.
Now, if we apply that type of "logical" thinking to non design, a reasonable person would have to conclude that because things look random and by chance that means they actually are random and chance and that is a leap of faith to hold that as a first proposition.
You are jem are doing the same thing. jem is making the argument that things look designed, therefore they are...but not offering any proof.
You are making the argument that things look random and chance consequence, therefore they are...but not offering any independent proof...because science has not actually proved causation is random nor chance.
Neither design nor non design have a proof.
So there is no valid reason to assume one over the other.
If I take you and jem as polar opposites, what I see is extremism on both sides. You both get emotional, you both become self righteous, and neither side questions their position, because both sides are making declarations they claim to "know" but do not when cornered will claim not to have "claimed."
Every single biological process, including the environmental impact on biological organisms, and the nature of biological organisms, i.e. to survive, to change can be taught to children in schools...without any theory of design or non design.
The child can ask, is the change by design or non design?
The correct answer is, "We don't know. There have been many different ideas as to the why's, but we have no way to actually know at this point."
You believe in non design. jem believes in design. You say jem quotes out of context, which indicates that you believe you have the proper context. jem believes he has the proper context. Neither can prove their position or what is the proper context. Both are making a first assumption without proof.
I happen to think design is a better first proposition, but I am not saying I know that, or that it is a fact. It is just a first proposition that doesn't change any fact of science, or support it. There are no odds that design is right and that non design is wrong. It is unknown.
My goal would be to return science to a truly scientific realm, where theories that crumble when boiling them down are not propagated as truths, and where opinions are classified accordingly as just opinions.
If a child is taught the history of science properly, the child begins to understand that ideas change radically in science, and for someone to build their entire world view and meaning of life based on some opinions of science, they are really no different than someone who practices any other religion (including the religion of atheism), or subscribes to scientific dogma, etc.
