flynn23 wrote:
] Why does creationism have to be opposed to scientific method?
] That makes no sense! The ideologies of creationism and
] evolution (the practical scientific explanation) aren't
] mutually exclusive. You could have both. All pure creationism
] says is that there was an intelligence behind the architecture
] and execution of the universe.

Et tu?

The problem isn't with what you are saying, its with why you are saying it. Are you saying that you have intelligent design because you have experimental evidence that demonstrates intelligent design, or are you saying it because you think thats how it "must have worked" or because you beleive that it worked that way.

] For myself, the more you know about science and the Way Things
] Work, the more you logically can conclude that it was not by
] chance or circumstance. It's far too well architected and the
] necessary steps for things to happen 'on chance' are
] dizzyingly impossible, even given billions of years.

I'm not entirely qualified to get into a detailed discussion of it. (Nano?) However, more then chance is involved. It relates to environmental pressures.

For example, some bacteria of a particular type are more resistant to anti-biotics then others. When humans take anti-biotics improperly they wipe out the weak ones but leave the strong ones around to continue to reproduce. Eventually there are enough present to cause a problem again, and the patient takes more anti-biotics. Again, if they take them improperly, the weak group from the new children will be wiped out that the stronger survive. In this case even the weaker ones in the group were stronger on average then the first group, because they are all related to parents of the original strong type. This is a real problem in our world that occurs on human time scales. There is no evidence that any intelligent force is intenionally producing new super bugs. Its entirely a by-product of our mis-use of certain medicines. You can actually observe the things adapt genetically to environmental stimulous in a lab.

In any event, a defense of evolution is irrelevent. Even if its a totally flawed notion this in no way provides a defence for intelligent design. Intelligent design must have experimentally verifiable evidence. It doesn't. It must stand on its own merit. It can't. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying that there is no experimental evidence that it is true, and hence I can't use it for any purpose, nor can I reasonably assume that it is the case.

If there is no math, then it is not science, its art. I don't have a problem with art until you start saying that its science. Its not.

RE: Wired 12.10: George Gilder is Dead!