An Answer about Intelligent Design
In an earlier post, I asked the following:
how much more defensible would Intelligent Design be as a philosophy [than as science]?
Upon further consideration, I have concluded that I.D. is impossible as a science, but completely feasible as a philosophy. The scientific method, in its most basic form, requires experimental evidence from at least two emperical data points, one of which is a control.
We, being within the body of evidence itself, cannot experimentally produce two data points to prove that outside intelligence provides the design of the system in which we exist. That is to say, we cannot produce a design without an originating intelligence in order to show that our system is designed by an Intelligent Being.
Ergo, Intelligent Design is not science. However, just as imaginary numbers can be proven to exist via mental consideration, so also Intelligent Design may yet be subjected to such mental exercise.
Good-bye, Intelligent Design
I no longer support the schemes of Intelligent Design, or its primary proponents, the Discovery Institute. Intelligent Design is a term coined specifically to hide the political agenda behind it: getting it taught in public schools, using taxpayer doll…
Is the problem with the word ‘design’, or ‘intelligence’?
Are crop circles a sign of intelligent design?
Neither; it’s using the words to hide the underlying agenda. Check the follow-up.