Intelligent Design

[bob b]

Science is about what can happen under the laws of nature. Under that definition, something CANNOT happen by magic. If DNA exists, then it must have developed somehow. We may not yet know the mechanism, but science rules out the act of an "intelligent designer."

I consider that a silly argument. If God exists you can't make Him disappear by inventing an arbitrary definition.

Besides, all scientists I know (quite a few including my brother), would laugh at the idea that science can rule out God. You probably meant something more modest like: "since science cannot deal with the supernatural it must proceed as though He doesn't exist".

And I agree that interpretations can and do differ. But ignoring the evidence is not an alternative interpretation.

I don't ignore the evidence, but just like evolutionists assign different weights to different pieces of evidence. For example, I know about radiometric dating and am aware of both its strengths and weaknesses. I stress its weaknesses while evolutionists stress its strengths. Different strokes for different folks.

And the evidence for DNA arising naturally is it's very existence.

How so? Because you have ruled out the other alternative by definition?

The truth is there is zero evidence for how DNA first arose, one way or the other.

The same is true for the origin of the universe.

There are theories, but theories are not evidence.

 

[noguru]

I consider that a silly argument. If God exists you can't make Him disappear by inventing an arbitrary definition.

Besides, all scientists I know (quite a few including my brother), would laugh at the idea that science can rule out God. You probably meant something more modest like: "since science cannot deal with the supernatural it must proceed as though He doesn't exist".



I don't ignore the evidence, but just like evolutionists assign different weights to different pieces of evidence. For example, I know about radiometric dating and am aware of both its strengths and weaknesses. I stress its weaknesses while evolutionists stress its strengths. Different strokes for different folks.



How so? Because you have ruled out the other alternative by definition?

The truth is there is zero evidence for how DNA first arose, one way or the other.

The same is true for the origin of the universe.

There are theories, but theories are not evidence.

You are correct Bob. Theories are not evidence. Theories explain evidence.

You are incorrect however, in regard to there being absolutey zero evidence to support the notion that DNA arose through natural processes. You just choose to re-interpret that evidence as support for your model of DNA arising through supernatural processes. A hypothesis, I might that cannot be tested (remember that is the most crucial part of science) through the material sciences.

 

[bob b]

You are correct Bob. Theories are not evidence. Theories explain evidence.

You are incorrect however, in regard to there being absolutey zero evidence to support the notion that DNA arose through natural processes. You just choose to re-interpret that evidence as support for your model of DNA arising through supernatural processes. A hypothesis, I might that cannot be tested (remember that is the most crucial part of science) through the material sciences.

So just what is the scientific evidence that supports the idea that DNA arose naturally?

I have never heard of such scientific evidence.