[Buddha-l] life force vis a vis Xianity & Hinduism

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 11:27 -0400, SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:


> My question: Why as one theory among others in a post-Modern society
> are arguments for intelligent design deemed unacceptable? 

Intelligent design is not a theory, because it cannot be tested. The
people who put it forward are not capable of stating what evidence they
might entertain as defeating the claim. If one has a claim that is not
defeasible, then one has a dogma, not a theory. That's why it is
completely unacceptable to teach intelligent design in a science
classroom. If a scientific version of it were to come along, then it
would be a candidate for discussion in science classrooms. But so long
as it is a dogma parading as an hypothesis, the people who advocate it
should be shot and pissed on. (Open-mindedness has its limits, and
you've just found them.) 

>  Here is another and related question: Why should a theory that posits
> accidental origination as a viable explanation to the complexity of
> the universe be a better one than a theory that posits an intelligence
> that in some way guides in accord with this complexity all things in
> their complex interactions? 

Jesus Christ. Don't they tell you Catholics anything about Ockham's
razor? (Ockham was a Catholic, after all.) The basic idea behind
applying Ockham's razor to this pseudo-theory of intelligent design is
that a theory that does not posit intelligence requires fewer
assumptions to explain the same thing. The theory of random mutation is
capable of explaining everything we know of with a bare minimum of
assumptions. Nothing at all is gained by adding the notion of
intelligence to the notion of mutation, especially since the theory of
intelligent design leaves unanswered the huge question of where the
intelligence came from that allegedly guides creation. It raises more
questions than it answers. So it is an inferior position.

-- 
Richard Hayes