Intelligent Design seems a far more rational reasonable and scientific explanation
well, it may "seem" rational and reasonable to you, but according to much of what I read this afternoon, it didn't quite meet the "scientific theory" requirement at all while evolution has much more than faith going for it, albeit that it contains gaps yet to be filled. For many, the inability to test ID in any formal sense will exclude it from the rational and reasonable category.
There is nothing wrong with the metaphysical or the philosophical discussion of these things and there is nothing at all wrong with your believing whatever you choose, but it needs to remain separate from science until it meets the standards of the method. So far you seem to have worked from a kind of a priori mindset about this, and I am not really qualified (or inclined) to try to change this.
Edit: I actually spent a few hours yesterday reading several articles about the Laws of Thermodynamics, entropy, etc, and discovered that even among the great minds there is a lot of disagreement about these laws and possible explanations for seeing exceptions and variances in their applications. It got way too complicated for me, but if nothing else from SI, I have learned that for every post arguing one scientific opinion, there is another out there arguing exceptions. |
