Evolution VS. Intelligent Design

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Your motive are indeed irrelevant to the discussion. But since we're being scientific, your reasoning is very relevant indeed. I simply don't understand the basis for your assertion that a lack of overarching purpose to the universe precludes the existence of science.

 

Can you please show me where I made that assertion? Taking my words out of context is a failure on your part for which I am not obligated to answer.

 

Absolutely: but that's why science has done so well over the last couple of centuries. Dissent from the current orthodoxy (provided it's backed by evidence and reason) is positively welcomed, and indeed is what leads to progress. Nothing needs to be taken on trust; everything that is asserted can be, and has been, proven - and the proof is there to be challenged by anyone who wishes to have a go.

 

And that's precisely the opposite of how organized religion works.

 

I agree, but if science today were to deviate from those principles, then it would just create another orthodox.

 

So what do you consider "the real motives behind science" to be? And why?

 

The motives behind science are the motives of any scientist, who is a human being to the core:

 

An interest in solving a puzzling question.

An overall public interest in solving a puzzling question.

Personal gain (money, title, authority etc) in solving a puzzling question.

[Brad 49548]

2+ hour long debate between Bill Nye (the Science Guy!) and Ken Ham (founder of the Creation Museum). I've only watched part of it myself, but am quite enjoying it. Well..especially Bill Nye's parts, but still, it's a good watch.