Quote:
|
Quote by: RickSp If you cannot even suggest the form that evidence might take, then you are just peddling another con. |
Evidence is interpreted data and all data can be interpreted from a teleological or non-teleological perspective. There is indeed data from the natural world that can be interpreted as supporting a design inference. That's why there are scientists that are design theorists.
Sure, I can submit data that I interprete as supporting a design inference but why should I waste time with critics that can't conceive of any evidence that would cause them to merely suspect ID?
Let’s do a thought experiment. Science is used to determine the age of the Earth. What if science determined that the Earth was 6000 years old?
Science is used to explore the relationships between living things. What if science determined that living things can be neatly fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, such that it would be impossible for them to be related by common descent?
Science is used to study the surface of the Earth. What if science determined that there once was a global flood?
If science determined that the Earth was 6000 years old, that evolution could not occur and all living things were fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, and a global flood once covered the Earth, wouldn't it be rational to suspect design?
But when I asked you ID critics if there was any conceivable data that would cause you to merely suspect design you were completely stumped. I can only assume that if the above extreme examples wouldn't trigger a mere suspicion of design from you then it's a waste of my time to submit what is admittedly much more subtle evidence.