Basically, the assumption is that Creation was designed therefore it needs a designer.
In science you are not allowed to introduce God, to fill in what you can't understand, or as a conclusion of an argument. Although it is perfectly valid as a religious experience.
One principle argument is that if nature was designed by an all knowing benevolent God, why are there so many design mistakes? An example is the position of the prostate gland in human males and its tendency to squeeze the uretha so that urination is impossible. Or the chance in females of a fetus to develop in a place other than the womb. The consequence of each of those cases can be fatal.
Design variation of bones can be demonstrated by fossil record, but this is not alway possible for soft tissue, such as the eye. The eye appears functioning. However, the evolution of the eye can be demonstrated by computer modelling. It remains beyond my competence to assess whether or not the model is set with the assumptions that preclude the conclusion. However, the assumption that there must be a Creator is refuted by the postulation of an alternative That is if Evolution is possible then Creation cannot be, as Creation can only be valid if there is no alternative. Beside there is no way that Creation can be deduced by computer modelling.
As an aside, on Creation,
The heaven's declare the glory of God and the firmament shows forth his handiwork. This is a response to awe and wonder, and the elicitaion of praise and worship, and to worship the Creator rather than the created.
God makes the sun to shine on the good and the bad, and the rain to fall on the innocent and the wicked. In other words his benefits is for all, and the exhortation follows to show kindness to all without reservation.
2It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
3The heaven for height, and the earth for depth, and the heart of kings is unsearchable.
Maybe this means that there will be no limit to what men can discover about Creation, of if you prefer, the Universe and its inhabitants.
2007-02-09 07:53:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by d00ney 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think what you mean is 'intelligent design'.
There are religious people who do not like the concept of how science explains the beginnings of the universe, including the earth, our solar system, and human evolution.
The science is not consistent with their beliefs.
Since the science is undeniable, they have come up with the concept of 'intelligent design'.
The premise is that the complexity and beauty of our Universe could not have happened by chance, but must have had an intelligent creator.
2007-02-09 05:30:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by Skyhawk 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
the design argument says the world is ordered
but the critics say this is not true, if it was ordered there wouldn't be natural disasters. (Nietzsche said this)
2007-02-09 05:23:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋