Now even the director of the Vatican Observatory has stated that
“Intelligent Design” is not science, and that if it is taught in schools, it should be in religion classes, not science classes.
If even the Vatican can recognize the difference between science and religion, why can’t the Kansas State Board of Education?
Sad that the above mentioned link is only for subsribers (for replying to the list)
But for Engineers/Scientists there is no use in a discussion of whether God was intelligent or not by installing exactly these laws of nature as we know them: they are facts! Whether nature – without guidance (see remark below) – could have achieved this is an open question.
Guidance: Think of a god, that is able to install “meta-laws-of-nature”, that is a set of rules, that define the interactions of all natural laws (kown and unknown to us!). The existance of such a god is not in conflict with science – simply because it does not play any role in normal science. But when we come closer to philosophy we have to consider this idea. DNA-analyses have shown a significant similarity between rats, mice, humans, apes, pigs, whales,… of the active genetic codes, so we (humans) share with them far than 90%! With _any_ of them! No Lie.
With some even more than 98%.
But what about paternity tests, do they rey on this slight margin on 1%-5%? No! They rely on the abundanly presence of non-coding regions. Only about 10%-20% of our DNA is really (or let’s reformulate that: directly) encoding our Genes. There are regions in the DNA that are – what? : scratch pads, arbitrary base sequences or whatever? What we found out is this:
The parents modify these non-coding regions and they are inherited by the children. Every parent has a distinguishable pattern that is encoded, not necessarily in the same region – we have thousands regions to imprint our pattern(s).
So, is God necessary for science? I don’t think so, because the laws of physics are enough to guide us.