COMMENTS:
Both are a load of BS!
I don't know much about astrology, but I'm tied down in causality, and I like it. If I can conceive a causal link then I might buy it.
Intelligent design as an argument was {I think} born out of science in folks looking at patterns in nature and concluding that surely to God couldn't be by chance alone.
They find that the basic rules of the universe are so finely balanced that the slip of any of them in and direction would mean no humans. So it must have been planned.
To me that's quite a leap. I believe that:
In retrospect *everything* is certain, and was always inevitable.
- hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Also, I watched something once {and I've helpfully forgotten what %| } in which someone had worked out that there was more chance we are the result of design than not. This was named "The Simulation Hypothesis", and didn't necessarily mean there was a traditional God as the creator, so much as some extra dimensional geek playing 'The Sims' or running a climate simulation. I think this fed the God hypothesis version of intelligent design.
I'm currently agnostic, with atheistic leanings, but do concede that just as someone can't show me "God", I can't show them "not God".
If there is/are a God/s, I think it's probably be time for a regime change up there. Vote Monkey!
Voted : Neither
Astrology sometimes pretends to be 'scientific'..but it isn't of course.
'Creation science' is likewise not any kind of 'science', but attempts to imitate Science in an effort to support their 'theological' outlook. Theology is not Science. Science deals with Objective Reality far better than any religion or belief system.
Ultimately, whatever "happens" to be The Truth, is The Truth!
|
