[quote]pookie wrote:
That’s not much of an explanation at all, is it? You can explain the color of the sky by saying “God painted it blue” but that gives you no actionable knowledge; it deepens no understanding.
How many planetary poles are we able to observe? For all we know, it’s a common occurrence of gas giants.
An example, of course, is never proof, which is why ID is not accepted as ‘scientific’. I’d never claim that any event is somehow a proof. It DOES however cause us to question.
ID is not scientific because it allows no way to disprove it. It cannot produce the “designer” it claims; and concludes too soon, as you do, that there is no natural explanations for various complex systems encountered in nature.
Instead of taking a perplexing question and looking for answers, as science does, it looks for unanswered questions and tries its hardest to keep them unanswered to support the existence of their theoretical “designer.”
There is nothing to be learned from ID (except as a psychology or sociology experiment), unlike all the other real sciences.
[/quote]
Science is rooted in Philosophy. David Hume has been a tremendous influence. He established rules that, in effect, bar any sort of religious explanation. That’s good and I certainly agree with that outlook.
The problem arises when those rules become self-limiting. If I say that all of human knowledge is rooted in sensory experience, then any other sort of knowledge is regarded as illusory. A better approach is to divide knowledge into empirical and subjective, the latter being restricted to the one person experiencing something.
That IS knowledge but not objective, in the sense that I can prove an event to another person.
I don’t ‘give up’ as you say. I simply understand that knowledge is not limited to what modern science says it is.
