Re: Proof of God's existence? Why not evolution?

Immortalist wrote in message ...
>
>"Dave Oldridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Mark Earnest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> >
>> > "Jakub Gaudasinski"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> [snipped, refer to original above]
>> >>
>> >> > O.K.  It only takes a little logic.
>> >> > In every case in human life, complex creations require intelligence
>> >> > and forethought, and a great deal of care.
>> >> > Like watches, assembly lines for cars, and building construction
>> >> machinery.
>> >>
>> >> Please define what you understand as "complexity".
>> >
>> > Anything that requires intelligence to create.
>>
>> Such a definition lacks insight.  Consider the Mandelbrodt set.  It is
>> created by a mindless, simple iteration, yet the figure created is a
>> finite area bounded by an infinitely long, infinitely complex jagged
>> line.
>>
>> The fact is, nature produces such complexity from simple bases all the
>> time.  Mere complexity, therefore, does not connote sentient or
>> intelligent design.  Even what the ID movement is fond of calling
>> "irreducible complexity" does not require it.
>>
>> This does NOT mean, however, that the universe is without a creator.
>> Only that it is created in a much more intricate manner than our
>> ancestors imagined.  Science, qua science, really has nothing to say
>> about the existence, or not, of God.  The question is irrelevant to the
>> scientific process (though not necessarily irrelevant to scientists
>> personally).
>>
>
>Are you claiming that the social sciences, like sociology and anthropology,
>are not really science?
>

Not to mention ontology.