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.
No. I really don't. No more than I pull out my kitchen drawer and think that knives, spoons and forks are a progression of evolving utensils. I see variety of design to perform different tasks. I pointed you back to the beginning because that's where the answer lies. Perhaps not even the beginning of life, but definitely the beginning of intellect. Again, you can't point to intellect's existence as answer to the question of its existence.
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.
If that is the case, then it sounds familliar. Since we both agree to the seperation of science and philosophy, I won't belabor the point. Now, since we are silencing the ID scientists philososphy, shall we silence the naturalist's philosophy in science? And since the naturalist scientists are making things up, hiding it behind complex formulas, and still getting published by the scientific journals, when do I get to play the "conspiracy" card? :)
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.
No. I really don't. No more than I pull out my kitchen drawer and think that knives, spoons and forks are a progression of evolving utensils. I see variety of design to perform different tasks. I pointed you back to the beginning because that's where the answer lies. Perhaps not even the beginning of life, but definitely the beginning of intellect. Again, you can't point to intellect's existence as answer to the question of its existence.
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.
If that is the case, then it sounds familliar. Since we both agree to the seperation of science and philosophy, I won't belabor the point. Now, since we are silencing the ID scientists philososphy, shall we silence the naturalist's philosophy in science? And since the naturalist scientists are making things up, hiding it behind complex formulas, and still getting published by the scientific journals, when do I get to play the "conspiracy" card? :)
Take care and be blessed...