Bert:Maybe you haven't found common sense to be reliable, but mine has turned out
to be quite dependable over the years.
Again, that does not mean that it is dependable in this instance. Common sense is only as good as the supporting data.
Bert: If "design" can't be tested, neither can the concept that the universe is an accident.
You are right that even if it can be shown that the universe could have come around "accidentally", this does not mean that there was a "designer" behind this. Such religious concepts however do add little to science.
Bert: I imagine what will happen is each scientist will choose his own assumptions.
Scientists will chose scientific assumptions to do science and religious assumptions for their faith.
Bert: Those believing the universe is an accident will continue to produce ideas such as "random
mutation and natural selection", "selfish genes", 95% of the genome being
junk, genetic determinism, Marxism, Freudianism, lack of free will, belief
that mind is a merely complex computer called "brain", abiogenesis,
sociobiology, multiple universes, belief that macro evolution is merely lots
of micro evolution, etc. Those believing the universe is the result of some
complex, rational design will look for more rational answers.
It's somewhat insulting to hear you refer to real science as bening somewhat "less rational". A lot of what you mentioned is founded in good science. Marxism, freudianism are however not scientific. You seem to be confusing science and faith here once again. Scientists will be looking for scientific answers, religious people will be looking be relying on faith and common sense to support their faith.
Pim:
>But how can one accept something in science that does not contribute
anything >to it?
Bertvan:
I assume design would contribute nothing to your thinking. I suggest you not
accept it.
I do no accept design as a scientific concept.