30 Mar '11 22:29>
I am a firm believer in ID. But this is how ID should be properly aproached:
1) ID need not contradict evolution one bit: evolution could simply have been the mechanism through which life today as we know it was brought about.
2) The "designer" need not be just one entity. In fact, if ID is correct, it is more likely that there were many designers, the same way that our complex cities and internet pages weren't created by one single all-powerful entity, but was built over time by many different intelligent beings.
3) ID is not science; it's a philosophy. It's a philophy based on science, but it isn't science, and shouldn't be treated as such. It's important to put ID in it's proper perspective, so that it's not misused or wrongly disguised as something it's not.
4) The "designer" need not be connected with any religion; in fact, if a designer exists, it (or most likely, they) aren't connected with any existing religion.
This said, I do believe that the universe couldn't have happened completely through chance.
1) ID need not contradict evolution one bit: evolution could simply have been the mechanism through which life today as we know it was brought about.
2) The "designer" need not be just one entity. In fact, if ID is correct, it is more likely that there were many designers, the same way that our complex cities and internet pages weren't created by one single all-powerful entity, but was built over time by many different intelligent beings.
3) ID is not science; it's a philosophy. It's a philophy based on science, but it isn't science, and shouldn't be treated as such. It's important to put ID in it's proper perspective, so that it's not misused or wrongly disguised as something it's not.
4) The "designer" need not be connected with any religion; in fact, if a designer exists, it (or most likely, they) aren't connected with any existing religion.
This said, I do believe that the universe couldn't have happened completely through chance.