Originally Posted by Sir Toose
Why do you think ID bad religion? It is bad science as it lacks a testable hypothesis but how is it different from a religious standpoint than religion historically?
The major ID proponents seem to be more interested in 'combating' the areas of science they disagree with, rather than 'questioning' them in a constructive way. That goes against what most Religions have spent most of their time doing - IE encouraging exploration of God's world etc. (Ignoring Copernicus etc, the Church's track record on promoting science is pretty damned good, and the same goes for other religions).
My idea of a good religion is one that doesn't try and deny inconvenient scientific discoveries - but helps figure out how they can be morally incorporated into the world instead.
Originally Posted by Sir Toose
Personally, I think ID has some interesting logical arguments though they are, admittedly, not science.
I think the Irreducible Complexity theory is doing science a service in that it tries to tackle one of the many 'gaps' in evolution theory (and forces science to focus on that gap).
And i ain't got a problem with the idea of there being a Creator. Just don't think it's proveable tho.
Originally Posted by Sir Toose
What truly does stand out is that neither modern science nor evolution (as in the theory of) can point out exactly what 'life' is and how it started.
Sure, but if anyone's going to get someway towards an accurate 'answer', it's gonna be them
. (On how life started anyway. What life
is... well, everyone can contribute to that one i guess
).
Originally Posted by Sir Toose
If one were to be perfectly pragmatic about evolutionary theory then one could look at the fossil record and document biological changes over time and that is really it. People take that in many directions and very few of those are based in science. Some would believe it makes monkeys into men and some believe that it's all part of a greater design that we, as of now, are too short sighted to see.
Well, there's more than just the fossil record out there. DNA mutation-rates in mitochondria etc have also been used to trace developmental changes, for example (tho, like carbon-dating, i don't think it's quite as water-tight as its proponents would like it to be). Evolution isn't just a one trick pony when it comes to evidence tho.
But you're right, there are still gaps. And you're right that it can't be demonstrated absolutely conclusively that we evolved from apes (altho if you don't believe that your only other alternative, given the wealth of suggestive evidence, is to assume that we just popped into existence suddenly. And that we just happen to be damn similar to apes
).
And btw, athiest-scientists and ID-supporters
both believe there's a 'greater design' to life. It's just that the former think it's a self-generating design, while the latter attribute it to a designer. Nigh on all of them venerate the fact that we could never encompass nor understand it all. (and the ones who think they do, well, they're just nuts
).
Originally Posted by Sir Toose
So, how is ID bad religion? Are you saying that it gives the religiously bent false evidence?
Erm, i'd say it gives 'em no evidence at all
. What makes it 'bad religion' for me is when it tries to impede science, rather than work with it.