Posted by swamphawk22 on 9/28/2012 5:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2012 2:50:00 PM (view original):Again we are not talking about any specific diety.
Posted by swamphawk22 on 9/28/2012 2:33:00 PM (view original):Fine, but that's religion (or at the very least, theism) not science.
Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2012 1:57:00 PM (view original):ID doesnt mention any specific god.
I don't have a problem mentioning god in school. But it really doesn't have a place in science class. Not knowing why something is shouldn't automatically default to "god must have done it." Because that's not science.
All it suggests is that based on the complexity of life, and the fact that almost everyone in the world has a creation belief, and many of the share similar qualities that maybe there is somethin to them.
The science community clearly is very touchy about anything that might be religion.
All ID says is that a Supreme Being has a possibility all things considered.
Maybe god planned evolution and had a hand in the creation of the universe. Maybe he didn't. Either way, it's not science.
We are discussing the theory that life is too complex to have happened accidentaly. That there would need to be a "Higher Power' guiding it.
In theory there should be life on millions of planets, but we have never seen any evidence that life exists anywhere else.
It's not necessarily too complex for have formed on it's own. We just don't know exactly how it happened. Defaulting to "it must have been god" is not science. It's religion.
And, as you point out in your second line, life is extremely complex and the odds are very long on life happening. It makes sense that, with such long odds, life only flourished in one place. But you never know. The universe is huge and we've only explored a tiny fraction of it, there may be life on other planets.