Quote:
Originally Posted by greatamerican128";p="
Intelligent design on the other hand is an extremely plausible explanation for the creation of the universe and the earth. It is amazing how the earth's atmosphere is perfect for the existence of organisms. If the atmosphere was even slightly more different than it is now, it might cause a catastrophe or create an unstable environment in which humans and animals alike could not live.
The earth's condition are much too perfect and exact to be created by chance, which leads to th logical conclusion that an intelligent being orchestrated the creation of our planet and the universe.
|
This part is pure pseudo-science. I'm not so worried about the challenges to evolution, though I know evolutionists already have counters to them (counters that in fact were around before the questions were asked by ID "theorists")... but the spread of this "hypothesis" you outline above is the punchline of the joke!
Of course it's a "plausible" explanation. So is the explanation given by L. Ron Hubbard in Dianetics... Ridiculous, but plausible (though I don't see how it is members of other religions can call it ridiculous without noticing the slivers in their own eyes).
The problem is that it is not provable. To be provable, something must be disprovable.
And, I'll add, the hypothesis contains a big jump in logic...
"The world is complex and we don't understand all its intracacies... therefore it must have been created by a Supreme Being". Why is that the case?
Even if evolution is disproved, the existence of God (much less your particular God) will not be proven. They are seperate hypotheses.
I actually believe in an intelligence behind the universe. The difference between me and ID "theorists" is that I know my beliefs are not necessarily scientific just because they're "plausible".
The thinking behind ID is the thinking behind conspiracy theories. Think on that a bit... jumping to a conclusion simply because some information is missing.