On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:58:51 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:36:46 -0400, JohnH
wrote:


No, it's 2 for Intelligent Design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvLnHfw3cOo

You know - for a smart guy, sometimes you fall into the same trap over
and over and over again.

The premise presented in that video is a false dichotomy by assuming
that the person viewing the plane wouldn't ask the question of who
made it. The assumption that Jason was a moron and couldn't have made
it only works if the information provided was that either Jason or
Susan made it.

In terms of ID vs evolution, the forced fault line in the discussion
is much wider. One is an article of faith, the other a matter of
science - proponents of each want the differences to be incompatiable,
but in fact, they are not. Science does not automatically mean that
one cannot believe in articles of faith nor do articles of faith mean
that one cannot believe in science.

Thus, the set up of presentations like the one above which
demonstrates a fault line that does not exist - or perhaps a better
way to put it is, it does exist, but only at the margins. Modern
people of faith understand that evolution in the animal kingdom
exists, but that does not intefer with the belief that somebody make
it, nor does it disallow following the tenants of faith and/or
religion.

Every belief system has it's outlyers even secular ones.

Plus, as a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I resent the
implication that all was not made in a boiling post of hot water.

So there. :)