Do you really not see the evidence for intellect progression in nature? We have multi-cellular animals that span the range from barely more than a colony with no centralized nervous system, to mammals with complex brains, and everything in between.
Why redirect the question to one of beginning of life? There are coutless organisms with no nervous system at all. Regardless of the source of life's beginning, we certainly don't have to know that answer to study the progress of life's development.
Human-created artificial intelligence is actually nothing like biological intellect. We've tried our best to imitate it, and evolutionary algorithms display the power of selection to create, but binary electronics have a long way to go before they will perform the same jobs that nervous systems do.
Sure there are scientists that contradict accepted science, and that's the way it's supposed to work. Sometimes they're right, and accepted science changes to reflect the new knowledge. I never claimed that we should follow the masses on these questions. I merely pointed out that religious people tend to put forth arguments based on feeling (e.g., your "ludicrous" statement) yet try to claim these are empirical conclusions.
The ID folks are indeed making stuff up. I can point you to many examples. When they're called on it, they try to hide the facts in overly complex formulas and misused jargon. Why don't we see any of their work in peer-reviewed journals? Don't bother claiming a vast scientist conspiracy to keep the truth hidden--as I said, science progresses through the presentation of new ideas. It happens all the time, but crackpot ideas with no real evidence don't get very far.
Science doesn't call nature's organization "apparent design" a priori. It's simply that you can't call it actual design without evidence. Similarity to human designs might be a piece of that evidence, but that's certainly not nearly enough. Maybe human design mimicks nature's design because we are part of nature?
Do you really not see the
Do you really not see the evidence for intellect progression in nature? We have multi-cellular animals that span the range from barely more than a colony with no centralized nervous system, to mammals with complex brains, and everything in between.
Why redirect the question to one of beginning of life? There are coutless organisms with no nervous system at all. Regardless of the source of life's beginning, we certainly don't have to know that answer to study the progress of life's development.
Human-created artificial intelligence is actually nothing like biological intellect. We've tried our best to imitate it, and evolutionary algorithms display the power of selection to create, but binary electronics have a long way to go before they will perform the same jobs that nervous systems do.
Sure there are scientists that contradict accepted science, and that's the way it's supposed to work. Sometimes they're right, and accepted science changes to reflect the new knowledge. I never claimed that we should follow the masses on these questions. I merely pointed out that religious people tend to put forth arguments based on feeling (e.g., your "ludicrous" statement) yet try to claim these are empirical conclusions.
The ID folks are indeed making stuff up. I can point you to many examples. When they're called on it, they try to hide the facts in overly complex formulas and misused jargon. Why don't we see any of their work in peer-reviewed journals? Don't bother claiming a vast scientist conspiracy to keep the truth hidden--as I said, science progresses through the presentation of new ideas. It happens all the time, but crackpot ideas with no real evidence don't get very far.
Science doesn't call nature's organization "apparent design" a priori. It's simply that you can't call it actual design without evidence. Similarity to human designs might be a piece of that evidence, but that's certainly not nearly enough. Maybe human design mimicks nature's design because we are part of nature?