Evidence for pattern development; mulling (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, December 09, 2014, 20:21 (3428 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: What has set me thinking, though, is his insistence that ID theory is scientific. This raises very interesting questions. One of the problems that bedevils the whole debate is the fact that all too frequently those involved fail to draw a distinction between science and the conclusions drawn by scientists.-This is exactly why I say I look at the results and make my own conclusions.- 
> dhw: However, the borderlines are not always clear, as becomes all too obvious when we enter the realms of science theory - and this is Murray's focus. Tony quite rightly rails against people who refer to evolution as a fact...... The argument that other theories deal with the natural world, whereas a designer suggests a supernatural world, falls apart if we acknowledge that none of us have a clue as to the borders of the natural world. If theories about unknown and probably unknowable universes, dimensions, forms of energy etc. can be dubbed “scientific”, why not a theory about an unknown and unknowable form of intelligent energy that produced our intelligence? -I can't agree more. The quantum layer of reality seems supernatural at times.
 
> 
> dhw: We are coming up to the seventh anniversary of the launch of this website, and I would like to think that honest discussion has been the hallmark of all the exchanges..... Your presentation of new findings and thoughts is a wonderful source of information and is often a spur to further discussion.-Shall we have a party and bake a cake? I think our battle is presenting a service, perhaps stimulating, to those that watch and/or read. Friendly battles to the end!