Originally Posted by deadpie
Anyone willing to prove me wrong?
If we substitute Intelligent Design for creationism: (If you refuse to allow the substitution then I call strawman, as the people who still believe in creationism are few, far between, and often mentally ill)
1)It's a supplement to the best scientific explanations. It's a search for more, to explain away the seeming inconsistencies in certain theories.
2) The belief in and of itself is not dangerous, though some have corrupted certain teachings.
3) Again, it's a gap filling theory, based on logical jumps, the way most scientific theories start.
4) No, it's supplemental to all known scientific theories.
5) How? For those who believe in it, it's either had no more affect than any other scientific theory or given people hope that there's something greater out there.
6) Saying that statistical odd currently projected by science occurred naturally seems less logical than intelligent design for me.
7) No, it's looking for the most reasonable explanation, It can support certain beliefs but does not intrinsically do so, It stays well grounded in reality, and is supported by logic and reason.
If you ever need to talk, you can PM me. I can't promise I'll solve your problem but I'll do my best to help.
"You're all clear kid. Now let's blow this thing and go home!" - Han Solo
Awesome People: Country-Cowgirl, Goose, RodeoGirl, Maliza, ShatteredWings Thanks to Kaius for the awesome sig.
Puppy <3 Kitty
~Kyle Was Here, and Was Awesome~