|
Statement #5: We can accept Intelligent Design because it fits logical observation.
Science: Forensics
Evidence: Just as crime scene investigators gather evidence so does the scientific theory of intelligent design and Darwinian evolution.
Both theories have access to the same scientific data. The primary difference is intelligent design insists on relying on observable evidence and natural logic to reach their conclusions. Evolution continues to insist on incredible suppositions that have no credible history of substantiation.
The end result of these differing scientific positions is contradictory conclusions based on similar scientific data.
Again, the primary difference is related to the actual suppositions of the individual theory. Intelligent design relies on observable data. They do not rely simply on scientific data, but those things that are observably true in the natural world.
If order does not come from chaos in the natural world it would not make logical sense to argue that it did with respect to origins.
If complex systems such as computers require the need of a designer to find both purpose and function it does not make logical sense to think that infinitely more complex systems such as the human body occurred without an intelligent agent.
Unlike creationism, intelligent design does not seek to specifically defend any religious text or persuasion. ID simply suggests that logic would indicate that if something looks designed it must be designed.
BACK TO EVIDENCE ARCHIVES
|
|
|
