Re: Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?

Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> ID is *not* baed just on "someone's opinions" anymore than any other
> knowledge system is. It is rooted in a claim that today's science
> fails to adequately account for all observed data and proposes
> and alternative. *Neither* system is provable, which is why I believe
> there should be a thorough and rigorous discussion on the matter not
> the copout "it's not science so we don't have to" argument.

There is a big HUGE difference between ID and evolution.
But you ignored my earlier point.

There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.
We CAN use evolution to predict results.

One is testable, and one is not.
Evolution has been tested millions of times, and each time works.
We can NEVER test ID as a theory.

ID can NEVER be proved or disproved.

Simple put, one is a hypothesis that can be tested, and be the basis
of science, and the other is philosophy, metaphsics and religion.













ID
> is *not* "Science" as currently constructed - it denies the efficacy
> of materialist philosophy. But the exact argument in question is
> whether or not it *ought to become* a part of science. As I have
> said over and over, this reluctance by the science establishment
> smacks of turf protection, ideological defense (by atheists), and
> undermines the claims of the objectivity of the establishment
> scientific community. If it's baloney demonstrate it, otherwise
> engage and have a meaningful conversation on the matter ...
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
.

Relevant Pages