@IronGaijin. The faith you refer to in statistical chance doesn't really exist. What most scientists who hold to the darwinian view of evolution believe is that darwin's theory of evolution is the current best method of describing the events of the past with the current available data. Hence the word theory. If new data show's darwin's theory to be wrong, then it will be investigated and a new theory formed. Pretty much all of science is saying, here's what we know and here is a theory that best explains what we know and can observe. This also applies to most scientists views of Intelligent Design. Evolution and Intelligent design aren't completely incompatible either, both could be present, who knows? (Intelligent design may imply a god or creator, but doesn't imply an omnipotent creator). Think of it this way. Imagine our world was a computer program, and the programmer was god. the programmer could create the program and run it, but that doesn't mean that unexpected things wont happen. It may be designed to be self sufficient. (The creator could have made our world and built in evolution to make it self sufficient). I personally dont think this theory is the case, but its still a valid theory at the moment.
|
john w (1092)
2 SFW Posts |
1 Space Comments
| Favorites | RSS Feed
Registered 2007-08-30 17:27:21 Comment Karma: 1 Featured Comments: 0 Member of : |
Recent Comments from john w
- Comment on Exciting Educational Revolutions (2007-08-30 13:44:51)
@IronGaijin. The faith you refer to in statistical chance doesn't really exist. What most scientists who hold to the darwinian view of evolution believe is that darwin's theory of evolution is the current best method of describing the events of the past with the current available data. Hence the word theory. If new data show's darwin's theory to be wrong, then it will be investigated and a new theory formed. Pretty much all of science is saying, here's what we know and here is a theory that best explains what we know and can observe. This also applies to most scientists views of Intelligent Design. Evolution and Intelligent design aren't completely incompatible either, both could be present, who knows? (Intelligent design may imply a god or creator, but doesn't imply an omnipotent creator). Think of it this way. Imagine our world was a computer program, and the programmer was god. the programmer could create the program and run it, but that doesn't mean that unexpected things wont happen. It may be designed to be self sufficient. (The creator could have made our world and built in evolution to make it self sufficient). I personally dont think this theory is the case, but its still a valid theory at the moment.
