I don't see the point of opposing ID if one is willing to accept divine origin of elements of the human psyche - one is just ruling out divine origin of biological structures. I see no reason to rule it out.
You can accept the possibility of divine intervention just about anywhere, with or without accepting specific claimed divine interventions as something that certainly happened.
I look to science to tell me what happened. The best evidence we have indicates evolution over time. Its possible that the evolution was following some divine plan that we can not discern, but if we can discern it than it isn't really science.
Are prions, viruses, viroids even living things?
Its debatable.
I don't think they are the direct ancestors of any current life. As they exist now they are indeed purely parasitical. But something that close resembles them than it resembles say an amoeba could be the 1st life on earth. You don't have to have a complex structure to have self replication.
The first part would have been more reasonable if I'd said "no nucleic acids could come into existence in the absence of living cells", I think. Stated that way I think its reasonable.
I don't. Whether its actually true or not could be debated, but I don't think its reasonable as a default assumption, and I don't think it is an idea that has been proven true.
Ideas are hard to separate from the people who hold them, and effectively create the ideas.
I don't think they are always so hard. I don't think they are so hard to separate in this case.
I'm merely recognizing that when people make a point of saying that something is "not science" or "not scientific" they are also meaning that it is "not true".
Usually they also believe it to be "not true" but one statement doesn't mean or even imply the other. Usually the statement "that isn't science" is used in response to an assertion that something is science, and that it is specifically scientific truth. In such circumstances its no surprise that anyone making the "its not science claim" also is likely to believe it is false.
The statement, "torturing innocent children to death while their parents and siblings are made to watch is wrong", is not science. But in my opinion, and in the opinion of most people it isn't an incorrect statement. Ethics, meta-physics, religion, all have ideas that are not science. The fact that they are no science can not reasonably |
