I agree that that's an interesting area for scientific exploration. I would encourage scientists to see if they can figure out how to explore it scientifically. And if they ever come up with a scientific theory to explain it, then we should include in science classes. I'll sure buy the book.
Actually, if you think about it, a basic principle of science, that given competing choices the simplest of non-disproved explanations is presumed to be the correct explanation, suggests that ID is more likely to be the correct theory than competing theories. If indeed there is an intelligent design, that takes care of all the ambiguities.
Imagine a future civilization, after we are all dead and gone, coming to this planet and trying to find natural causes for the creation of the Empire State Building and the 747 airplane. They would have to squirm and twist to find such a theory. These creations are the result, quite simply, of intelligent design -- ours.
We know that intelligence exists -- some few humans (many fewer than one would wish, but some) have it. We know that this intelligence can can modify life forms -- look at all the new bugs we create in the laboratory; look at the new breeds of dogs, pigs, and other animals we have created for our benefit or our pleasure, look at the new plant varieties we have created (look just at the varieties of apples now available which simply didn't exist 100 years ago), look at the genetically modified crops we have created and are creating daily, etc.
We know first hand, from actual experience, that that intelligent manipulation can be the cause of changes in life forms.
It is pure egocentric arrogance to assume that we are the only beings who have ever done this. The theory that there is intelligence beyond ours which has itself caused changes in life forms is hardly something we can dismiss out of hand.
I'm not saying that there is such an intelligence. But to claim that the theory that there is is absurd is simply dishonest. |
