re: How do you you explain the phenomenon deja vu?

Intelligent design, if it is to be legitimized by the scientific community and taught in classrooms, must be peer reviewed and held to the same degree of scrutiny that every other realm of discourse and study is otherwise it's simply just an assertion. Science strives for the creation of well supported models of the world with explanatory and predictive power - neither of which are offered by intelligent design.

quote:

---

Is it not established that humans utilize intelligence to create new things all the time?

When musing over the origins of the Universe and our place in it, it should not be considered crazy when someone believes that it was created or brought forth by design. That is because we know creation and design exsist in the Universe. Fact. No debate.

---

I would contest this point. The reason we know of intelligently created things is because WE create those things. I KNOW how computers are made, how watches are made, how cars are made, etc. There is a plethora of evidence to support that statement. The notion that we must therefore ALSO be created intelligently is not the same thing. We don't have evidence of life forms being created intelligently... and by whom? We don't have any evidence to suggest that either. To equate the two ideas is an equivocation fallacy and an argument from ignorance.

Again, you bring up atheism. The head of the human genome project is also a Christian. It's possible to be religious and accept science. And by the way, there's nothing wrong with being an atheist. I'm an agnostic atheist and am open to any possibility - including the possibility of a god. I just haven't found evidence to support it.

I understand where you are coming from. It's just that peer review (independent replication of results to support a proposed conclusion, for all intents and purposes here) is the cornerstone of science. Even the most mundane simple concepts in science should be (and are) tested ad nauseam so that statistical significance can be verified and to eliminate any other variables that may be unaccounted for. Nothing is ever true in science, just likely or unlikely to varying degrees.

I'll leave it at that as you seem like a nice guy.

quote:

---

I also think it's related to dreams and storing of memories. I didn't notice until reading this thread that my deja vu frequency has decreased with age.

---

If déjà vu does indeed decrease with age wouldn't that lessen the probability that the dream theory is true? Statistically speaking it would make sense that déjà vu would increase with age since older people would have accumulated more dream data making it more likely to encounter a real life scenario that resembles a previous dream.