In any event, in the ten or 15 or 20 years, or if we go to Paley more than 200 years, intelligent design has failed to make its case to the scientific community, correct?
A I disagree. You’re going into very, very big problems in the history of science, and one can’t settle those in one-sentence answers or one-sentence questions. In the time of Paley, which you referred back to, a lot of people thought there was evidence for intelligent design, one of them was the young Charles Darwin, who remarked a number of times about his enjoyment of Paley’s book. Since Darwin’s theory was proposed as an explanation for apparent design, many people in the scientific community changed their minds and said, well, perhaps we have an explanation for this strong appearance of design. But science marches on and we have new data these days. And it’s — and observing the new data, we can ask again, is Darwin’s explanation, does it continue to be a good explanation for this. And I think we can — we can again reopen this question and ask — ask whether — ask whether it’s a good explanation.
Related Questions
- In any event, in the ten or 15 or 20 years, or if we go to Paley more than 200 years, intelligent design has failed to make its case to the scientific community, correct?
- Is that similar to intelligent designs claim that science presently cannot tell us the source of design in nature?
- Not including intelligent design?
