That is not the end of it, of course. Consider Percival Lowell and the "canals" of Mars. And his successor Richard Hoagland and the "face" of Mars and other such alleged Martian artifacts.
When Hoagland's article about the face on Mars first came out, it was a real hoot as far as I was concerned. NASA described it as a coincidence of light and shadow, and stated that with pictures of tens of thousands of these mounds, the fact that at lease one resembled a human face was to be expected.
It looked like the face in the painting "The Scream" to me, making the whole human face idea even more ludicrous.
It is a well know phenomena in psychology that the human mind can find patterns where the actual sensory input is rather sketchy at best.
Recognizing of the shape of a leopard despite the scarcity of input data has survival value after all.
Nowadays, Mars doesn't have canals. Instead, it's covered with glass worms and craters caused not by meteorites but nuclear explosions.
The religous mind is better at finding design than the secular mind. Recall the long pious history of sacred image discovery, face of Jesus on such things as tortillas, evidence of Christ on the cross in "blood" issuing from trees etc.
For finding design where none exists, it's pretty hard to beat schizophrenia.
Only seeing naturalism where there is the work of a mind is just as wrong. If an archaeologist went to mars and found something that seemed to be carved tool, a picture, or some pattern that did not match with naturalism then they would be wrong to stick with naturalism just because they think that is "science."
Or SETI, if they came across a code that was as distinct from natural processes as the text you write here supposedly is (Which is questionable, looking at it, maybe Darwin was right and mommy Nature selected your text for you.) then they would be wrong to stick with a naturalistic explanation just because they incorrectly felt, "Well, this may be utterly stupid, but at least it is science!"
But perhaps it makes sense to say that the text/code that you all wrote here is selected by Nature. It's just more matter in motion, like a piece of excrement in the toilet.
Nature calls, excrement happens...just don't forget to flush next time.
Mynym -
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Certainly, if there was evidence for design in nature, then ID creationists might have a case—but there's no such evidence.
"I have no idea what point you are trying to make."
Yes, you have no idea. I'll just stick with the naturalistic explanation for your lack of thought. I.e., I am reading your brain events, which is pointless. That's why I'm not going to continue unless you actually use your mind to make a point.
"Certainly, if there was evidence for design in nature, then ID creationists might have a case—but there's no such evidence."
If there was evidence of intelligent design in the text you write, then you might have a point.
But as you say, "There is no such evidence." Yep, and that's why you are being stupid in your lack of intelligence.
So I leave you to such stupidity. You would not make the effort to understand intelligent design anyway. Those who refuse to look for the evidence and just sit back in their obstinance and say, "There is none." are too passive for it.
This isn't the place to educate you.
Commenting by HaloScan
