Ted, Let me tell you what I don't think........it didn't happen in six days.
I'll give you a little analogy from my own job, which is to simulate and validate a design before it gets to silicon. There are two approaches we take. One is called "focused testing," where we write specific tests to hit the features we want to hit. The problem with that is that it's very inadequate when it comes to hitting the unexpected, for if we can code it up in a test, it wouldn't be "unexpected" now would it? The other is called "random testing," where we just use raw computing power and flood the simulated design with random stimuli. Unfortunately, we don't have forever to wait until the random stimuli hits everything we want it to, especially in a fast moving world of tech with ever-compressed schedules.
I may be missing your point but what I see is two types of testing commonly used in statistical research to test a theory, or in this case, to validate a design. The entire process can be called scientific.....conclusions reached through scientific evaluation of fact. Evolution is another example of that process.........whereas, as far as I can see, ID is not.
Obviously the answer is a combination of the two, but I like to characterize the two extremes as "creationism" and "evolutionism." With "evolution," we can validate any design if we only had a million years to work with. With "creationism," we can validate the design in six days and get Sunday off, but we'd need divine intelligence to do just that.
But don't you see, YOU are able to consider ID as a possible way to validate your design because of a huge assumption that you've made......that God exists. And there is nothing scientific about that assumpion........its predicated primarily on your faith....your belief systems.
Even if God did exist, and you could prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, I don't think he would do up the earth the way it is described in ID. Why? It would be too easy for a superior being. What we be much more difficult and much more worthy of a superior being would be an approach more like evolution. Why? Because it requires the establishment of natural laws and creating ecosystems that interact with each to each other's benefit. Think about how difficult that would be to pull off......to literally terraform the earth into an ongoing, viable home for life. Now that to me is an undertaking worthy of a deity.....not ID.
And that's the problem with religion.......not only do you want to believe in something for which you have no factual proof except blind faith but you want others to believe it as well. That's what I find so arrogant about people who are into religion. They insist that others follow them blindly. Its the equivalent of me saying that Seattle is the future of this country and that you must give me your money so I can invest it here. Actually, its not even the equivalent.......with Seattle, I could at least throw out some facts that would support my position.
Most non religious people ie Z would not even bother to discuss this issue with you. The only reason I do is because I have some proof that you might be right........about God, not ID.
ted |
