No, it does not, it just shows that a designer is not necessary to the process. Ockham's razor says, do away with what is not needed to explain something.
-- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Tom C wrote: >> Here is what the "National Center for Science Education" likes: >> >> "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the >> biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in >> favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. >> Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes >> of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution >> occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its >> occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically >> irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited >> to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of >> our nation's public schools." >> > > That's all well and good. It starts out from the premise of "We won't > consider the possibility of a designer". So this is 'science'. 'Science' > that refuses to consider all possible explanations. 'Science' that knowingly > looks in one direction but not another. 'Science' that ostracizes and > ridicules even it's own learned members if they dare deviate from the > scientific dogma promoted by the majority and it's hierarchy (remind you any > other historical group?). 'Science' that demeans other ideas and holds that > only THEIR own learned clergy must be trusted, and that the laymen is of > little worth unless they profess the true faith. > > Yes, sounds like 'science' to me. I like science personally, just not this > kind. > > Tom C. > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
