Nicely stated (#290.) That's one thing that gets me. The evolutionists' standard insult on these threads is that ID is not "science". OK, I'm willing to accept that. But what is science? Here they'll provide the most up-to-date definition of science, top of the charts, hippest, with it, dude. 100 years ago that definiton was different, 500 years ago it would contradict how they preach it today, in September, it may be adjusted again. That's fine, that is how human matters work, but see it, acknowledge it, step back and get some perspective on it. This is the best we humans can do with it today, as it was the best 100, 500 years ago. The Bible, as you said, never changes. Everything else passes...
Science progresses.
Would you like to have the medicines of 500 years ago? The chemistry? The electonics? (Whoops, there was no electronics 500 years ago!)
If you like the distant past that much, let me know. I'll teach you how to chip a nice arrowhead. Whoops, a spearhead. Arrowheads were more recent.
<< The evolutionists' standard insult on these threads is that ID is not "science". OK, I'm willing to accept that. >>
Then why do you call it an "insult." It's just a statement of fact.
<< This is the best we humans can do with it today, as it was the best 100, 500 years ago. >>
You have got the gist of it. That is the strength -- and the beauty -- of science. It adjusts to new information and improves itself.
<< The Bible, as you said, never changes. >>
And that is the weakness -- in fact, the fatal flaw -- of creationism. To freeze one's understanding of the natural world, on the basis of a particular interpretation of a religous text written thousands of years ago, is to cut oneself off from reality.
And that is not meant as an "insult."