Quote:
|
Okay, why isn't it scientifically rigorous?
|
Those interviewed for the book were mostly philosophy and theology scholars, and none of those interviewed oppose ID.
Quote:
|
But still, do you believe it is plausible for a system so complex to have come about by random chance...the odds against it are overwhelming. And science can't explain why the Big Bang happened: Life against the odds..
|
It's not like we're stuck between random chance or ID. More importantly, throwing God out as some metaphysical goop that fills all crevices as yet untouched by science doesn't hold much water.
Quote:
|
When scientists can't answer, philosophers attempt to.
|
And outside of the Discovery Institute, ID is not taken seriously.
Quote:
|
There had to be, by logical neccesity, an eternally existent Object, since an infinite regress makes no logical sense whatsoever, in my mind, or else there would be, and always would've been, nothing.
|
Logical necessities are not necessities of reality.
I think the problem is rooted in the mistaken attempt to prove God. It's impossible and misses the point.