For every expert there's an equal and opposite reexpert.
It would seem to me that no theory of origins can ever be science. Since no one was there and the event is unrepeatable, all ideas, no matter how well supported by "facts" can ever go beyond theory. Anyone who is willing to study evidence and arguments on both sides of the question, without bias, will find that there are no hard and fast "proofs" of either side (creation or evolution). Therefore, to take a firm stand on either opinion/theory requires "faith"...something that evolution supporters refuse to acknowledge as being valid. The requirement of "faith" to believe in a theory concerning an event in the distant past that was unobserved and is unrepeatable places the believers in both camps in the realm of "religion". Some have faith in chemicals/big bang/whatever and the others have faith in God (in whatever guise they prefer to believe in).
Veritas Amo I like your name but you have misinterpreted what is going on here. You are right that any theory of TRUE origins can not be science, but the scientific evidence for the big bang is still quite valid. Read some of Karl Poppers philosophy of science if you really care. When I said true origins i mean that any cause of the universe surely must have a cause itself, so we are left with no answer. Back to the ID debate, ID does not attempt to supply an alternative to an origin theory, it attempts to be an alternative to Evolution, which is quite scientific and falsifiable, which ID is not. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe, instead it explains the diversity of life, and nothing more. That is why the attacks on it are ludicrous.
* I meant to say that EVOLUTOIN does not attempt to supply an alternative to an origin theory
Post a Comment