LogFAQs > #976272730

Mackorov posted...

wouldn't that mean the only other alternative is intelligent design, that some 'creator' created living beings? Yes, but why not?? Given both cases are equally unproven, why does the scientific community shun the intelligent design possibility and choose to succumb to their bias on abiogenesis only?

Are they equally unproven? Yes. Are they equally likely? No. If we were to assume for a moment that there is some intelligent creator of life out there, we're basically talking about a deity at this point. Something supernatural, at least.

Is abiogenesis proven? No. Not yet, at least. But matter and energy do exist. We can observe them. We know they're real. Where is a deity? Something supernatural? We've never found good evidence to support the supernatural. Saying that intelligent design is a possibility requires you to make another entire illogical leap into accepting the existence of the supernatural and then assuming it acted a certain way. Abiogenesis only requires you to think that things we know to exist (matter and energy) may act in certain ways we haven't yet observed.

Also, you've set up a false dichotomy. It's not abiogenesis vs intelligent design. It's abiogenesis vs intelligent design vs any number of other possibilities we may not have even thought of yet. Imagine, 600 years ago, two people discussing sickness.

A: Sickness is a result of ghosts in your blood.

B: Here's why that's dumb. Having refuted your "ghosts in the blood idea," that leaves us with the only other possibility: My god makes people sick when they make him mad. What other option is there?

Of course, neither one of these guys would conceive of the idea of germs.