Re: Who's Burden of Proof?

George wrote:
> > The burden of proof on this issue lies not on those who
> > believe in God's ongoing intelligent design activity but on those who
reject
> > it.
>
> If I remember correctly, this is what started this thread, & I fail to see
> its logic. ID is being presented as a scientific claim, & when new
scientific models or
> theories are introduced, the burden of proof is on their proponents. The
burden of
> proof for string theories is on string theorists, not on those who
presently find their
> arguments unconvincing.

My first post was not about the ID movement, but the actual reality of
intelligent design and its designer. In fact the thrust of my arguments
have been that the burden of proof concerning the reality of intelligent
design is not on those who accept it but those who reject it. ID theorists
may do what they will, but I think their efforts are not necessary and will
not be compelling anyway. People infer design and what designers are like
every day. Inference to an active divine intelligent designer is simple and
the most reasonable one. Those who reject this inference should have the
burden of proof.

It is a fruitless endeavor to try to create a compelling *scientific* answer
to the question of intelligent design either way. However, it seems that
many in the scientific community just assume that science has ruled out
active ongoing intelligent design. This assumption is, however, based on
some either conscious or unconscious metaphysical leaps.

What science and religion *can* do, however, is see if there ways to take
the non-metaphysical world view of science and the theological views of
religion and find a friendship that is also compelling to humanity. To do
that I think religionists must look for new ways to think about God's
creative activity and scientists must stop couching metaphysics with
science.

Steve Petermann
Received on Sat Nov 29 13:16:51 2003