Replies

>>>ID is not a scientific theory. A court of law has ruled it it is not. 99+% of scientists say it is not. Some of it's leading proponents admit it is not unless the definition of science is changed, which means they admit it is not a scientific theory. To date it meets none of the criteria a scientific theory must meet - ID is not testable, it is not falsifiable, and it has no predictive value.<<<

Well, do you really want to appeal to something irrational?

You are appealling ad populum, which is a logical fallacy.

Ironic that Science is rejecting reason, when they claim Theism can't be rational. (Theism is Rational, it is Material Monism that is irrational in the most basic). Science appeals to empiricism, which isn't reason.

Just because most scientists reject something, doesn't mean that they are right. A great example is that for most of recorded history it was accepted by scientists that the atom was unsplitable. Guess what? 99%+ were wrong.

>>>You repeating it is a scientific theory over and over again doesn't make it true. And what a handful of disingenuous religiously motivated scientists say won't make it true either. Until ID meets the criteria that a scientific theory must meet it is useless other than as a philosophical/theological idea.<<<

The problem is that science refuses to justify it's priori of Naturalism in the most basic. Science assumes it. First anything from Theism to Biology must have it's worldview rational otherwise it is basing it's conclusions on faulty foundation.

>>>Wishful thinking that at some time in the future ID will become an accepted scientific theory is based on nothing but fantasy. If ID still cannot be tested, cannot be falsified, and cannot predict anything 10, 20, or 50 years from now, it will remain what it is, useless.<<<

I doubt that. The tide has turned. If there was no threat Material Monist Scientists wouldn't be fighting so hard against allowing it into the peer journals. Rather, they would just allow it and then next month ridicule it. Scientists can't afford that, because ID would put more holes into Evolution than rationalism does Material Monism.

You are appealling ad populum, which is a logical fallacy. ... Just because most scientists reject something, doesn't mean that they are right.

One of the things a scientific theory must do is convince most other scientists it is valid, so the views of 99+% of scientists are valid. This is not a logical fallacy.

A great example is that for most of recorded history it was accepted by scientists that the atom was unsplitable. Guess what? 99%+ were wrong.

Modern science is only few hundred years old. So your 'recorded history' comment is irrelevant. Modern atomic theory, the only truly scientific theory about the atom is only a bit over 100 years old. If it's what you claim, I'd like to see a citation for you're statement that 99+% of scientists claimed that the atom could not be split since the introduction of modern atomic theory.

The problem is that science refuses to justify it's priori of Naturalism in the most basic. Science assumes it. First anything from Theism to Biology must have it's worldview rational otherwise it is basing it's conclusions on faulty foundation.

The justification for, and validation of, modern science is the modern world you live in. The marvels of our modern world are the products of science. Your statements are just meaningless philosophical musings that have no bearing on the reality produced through the application of scientific theories. What future marvels might we expect from ID? Let your imagination roam free and just give me one example.