Thank you for explaining it better than I could. If there's an area where we don't have the answer i.e. biogenesis, why should we not consider all possible explanations? Why is there an immediate dismissal of Intelligent Design. My earlier explanation was that this negativity to intelligent design is based in the historical context of religious persecution of scientists like Galeleo, and other later scientists who proposed teaching evolution. My point is that dismissing Intelligent Design is not a scientific stance, where all options should be considered, but rather a reactionary stance based on past missdeeds of the church. Now however, the persecution is directed the other way, and although it's not as bad as the Inquisition, it's still unbalanced and unfair to the proponents of Intelligent design, especially those who really do approach it scientifically.



So you are arguing that because suffering exists, there cannot be a God. I hear this argument a lot from people who do not believe in God... But that does not make it wrong. However, if we examine it logically, it doesn't add up. I maintain that God's existence is hidden from us. We cannot prove or disprove it scientifically. Science is limited to things which appear to our senses and can be observed.

The existence of suffering does not prove or disprove God's existence, it just indicates that if there is a God, then it must be a God who allows suffering to go on. My view of this is that such a God might also allow for the existence of Hell, so I believe the safest bet is to bet on God. I may be wrong, but if I am it won't make any difference, I'll be dust. If, however, I bet on no God, and I'm wrong, I'll regret it forever. This is the basic logic I use to arrive at belief.

This is not however, the end of it. Let's assume for the sake of argument, that God does exist. If so, He surely could make Himself apparent to anyone He chooses. (please note I don't believe God is a Man, it simply sounds better to me than calling God 'It' or 'She') Anyway, I don't think God remains a simple 50% bet for people who choose to believe. They begin a relationship in which God may choose to reveal Himself to them. If you think this is un-scientific, you're right. The movie 'Contact' addressed this very issue, when Jodie Foster's character asked Matthew McConaughey "can you prove that God exists?" His response was "Do you love your father?" She said "yes", and he asked "can you prove it?"

My point is that a lot of people, scientists included, have concluded from studying nature, that the complexity and beauty in it has led them to believe that there was an Intelligence behind it's design. Why can this not be taught? This is different than Creationism, which takes the Bible literally, and imposes itself on any scientific discovery.