Quote:
Quote by: Simonius  I don't actually understand why you need to make assumptions about the nature of the designer, why assume that our creator/designer is a non-physical mind? Why assume he also created the universe?
For me it is quite simple, given the avaliable evidence what theories make logical sense.
And to me evolution/creationism/intelligent design are all valid theories because the avaliable evidence does not deny them. It may be one, it may be all three, I dont know but I have my hunch on one.
There is nothing I can see to even begin to specuate the nature of a designer however. |
Why assume the reverse of what you do not want me to assume. The reason I would assume this is because my overall outline (which we have yet to get around too) would include and support that my asumptions. However, unlike some Bible thumpers I would not wish to teach that any particular assumption is an absolute. No more so then science would assume that a theory is an absolute. The idea is to present a wise range of ideas and possiblities.
The reason you have not seen anything to suggest the nature of a designer is because you have ignored looking. What is the nature of "Mind" and what does a mind do? Well, a Intelligent mind is both creative and it would organize things, and by observing exsisting designs and pattens we can make an asumption. Or to be more articulate we can make two or more assumptions. The only important thing is to not make the misstake of claiming one assumption is the one and only right one. Because it is too early to make such a judgement in the on-going history of science and nature observation. Nor should we expect students to make a choice, nor that teachers should tell them which choice to make as the best one. Present the evidence, present the different potentials for interpretation of the evidence. That is all.