>It's not a matter of one person's "common sense" competing with other
>people's "common sense." It's a question of presumption and burden of proof.
>Obviously, claiming that something is designed is a stronger claim than the
>assumption that it is the result of natural causal processes, because it
>requires an additional entity, the designer, and additional causal
>processes.
Bertvan:
Hi Chris,
There may not be a way to "prove scientifically" that nature is the result of
rational design, rather than random processes. I could suggest the "burden
of proof" lies with those who claim obvious appearances are really an
illusion. However I see no reason to challenge anyone to prove the
unprovable. I imagine what will happen is scientists of both view points
will continue repeatable, measurable, scientific investigations. Those
believing in random processes are probably satisfied with "random mutation
and natural selection". Those believing in rational design will look for
other mechanisms. The Gaia concept is an example. I can think of no way
Gaia could have evolved by "random mutation and natural selection". (There
is only one Gaia, right?) I have no idea of Lynn Margulis views on design,
and in today's confrontational climate over design, she might be reluctant to
say, but she has been critical of "Darwinism". There are probably still
scientists skeptical of the Gaia concept, and maybe you are one of them.
Again I see no need to demand anyone prove it's validity or lack of validity.
The philosophical concept under which a scientist works influences where he
will look for answers, but the nuts and bolts of doing science is the same
for all scientists. Can you live with the possibility that some scientists
believe nature is the result of rational design, and judge their results
scientifically--regardless of their philosophical beliefs?
Bertvan