Truth is not determined by many people believe in it. Was there anyone out there who believed in heliocentric system before Copernicus? Did that mean that before Copernicus the system was different?
And just because the authorities can put you in jail for saying it, it doesn't change what is there. Putting Galaleio in jail does not change the fact that the earth moves. Especially if you are reading Hemingway.
As I age, what little evidence I see for design in the system shows less evidence of intelligence than sadism.
I believe in God, and I believe in evolution. Therefore, logically, I have to adhere to some belief in some form of ID. However, here is the difference: I recognize the limitation in the scientific method and that allow "God In The Gaps" to creep into our scientific process will screw everything up. To me, this is about preserving the methodology that governs how we define the natural world in a scientific concept. It is beyond the scope of science to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Objectivity is the key to sorting out the truths of reality, whether it's an inward philosophic perspective, or bench experiments. Which is most suitable to understanding origins, and our ordained position therin? Both have their place. From my perspective, it is an overview and analysis of what is before us. Biology is in our face. With better diagnostic tools, we can now discern much more than in the past. But we still face an enigma; how to objectively analyse what we see. Teleology or no, that is the question. In order to arrive at a logical conclusion, we must strive for objectivity.
A foundational principal of Skepticism (atheism) is objective and rational thought. This goes back to Plato, Socrates and beyond. David Hume claimed to be a leader in rational thought, although from his writings, I see bias and prsupposition sprinkled throughout. And not just he, we
all have presuppositions and biases. Religous bias is one, but a staunch adherance to Darwinst thought is another. The first could be by indoctrination or a religious experience; the second via academic indoctrination primarily.
Neither should be a starting point for seeking truth.
I frankly have neither. So when I am accused of having religious bias, I just chuckle. I believe in an overseer, and in fact have had encounter type experiences, many in fact. But my position on ID is
purely based upon observation. And my views are subject to modification.
As a biomedical engineer, and having studied genetics, anatomy, and some physics and math, I see virtually
everything that is non random from a design perspective. But I know there are those who do not, will not, and buy into darwinian logic carte blanche. To me, this constitutes a stubborn refusal to at least consider that life is the intentional outcome of directed activities.
And yeah, the design flaws of the human body often times lead one to wonder what sort of intelligence guided this process.
I see
all designs as less than perfect, or subject to revision/ modification. But as we all know, biologic system function well. Since vertebrate forms are only temporary anyway, and since they do work well, why nitpick? They are merely temporary vehicles for the 'real' self, a spirt form of some sort.
Regarding eyes in particular, the degenerate args I hear are silly and sophmoric. If I can zip through traffic while talking with someone in the car, glance at a chick in another car or on the sidewalk, handle an iphone, and all at a rapid pace, I'd say the eyes/ brain were functionaing well.
Or signt integrated to bodily functions in boxing or soccer, running to catch a ball in the outfield with sun in your eyes, or catching a ball between first and second while keeping your eye on the runner. And then I hear that the eyes are bad designs!
B S
On top of that, I am dismayed (but not surprised), the dishonest institutions like the Discovery Institute would be run by a bunch of "born again" lawyers and other soft science (at best) eggheads that don't deem it necessary to allocate a bulk of their funding into any research and instead dump their efforts into trying to sway public opinion. They have no interest in science, they are simply a political action committee in wolves clothing.
I see a new crop of design proponents in the wings. They may accept a religious orientation or not, but they will not be agenda based due to
a priori religious indoctrination. No, like I, they will be rationalists, even skeptics, but skeptical of
ordained and imputed beliefs no matter which side is represented by those beliefs.
Given the Internet as a resource, some will be of the 'new atheist' ilk, but the others will be design theorists, and will not accept darwinian tenets in the classroom. They just won't. And in sense, I feel for the profs who will have to deal with them ...
