Replies

Not in this context. In the way you are trying to use it, it makes *religious* lose the meaning it almost always has.

NOPE IT DOES NOT.

IN FACT RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY DEFINES RELIGION THUSLY :

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."

If no intelligence created the universe, then the alternative is
it has its own material cause and ultimately has a different purpose.

You CANNOT ULTIMATELY avoid making are religious statement regardless of how
you try to avoid it.

I do not disagree with the definition, I disagree with the usage. The way you use it,
*religious* could apply to gardening or jogging.

UH UH. Pertaining to the ultimate cause and nature of the universe, it does not.

But using the definition you use for *religious*, it fits in just fine.
I play guitar religiously. It is not my religion.

But in your response you imply that the universe has no intelligence cause,
that isn't like playing the guitar, that is defending a belief concerning
the cause and nature of the universe.

The possibility of intelligent cause is more likely than random chance.

Now you are straying from your own chosen definition of *religious*.
Try to stay focused.

If you read my response above, I believe I am.

You are losing it. Try some meditation, it may clear your mind.

Please follow your own advice.

BTW, methodoligical naturalism is a neccessity for ALL science. There is no way
to do science without it.

Why ? This is not a tenet deducible by the experimental method, but a
philosophical assumption from outside science.

This conveniently ignores the creationist contributions to the founding of science.
Creationists agree that the particles would not behave arbitrarily,
because they were created by a God of order. But I don't know how an atheist
can have philosophical justification from his underlying premise, i.e.
‘God does not exist’, for a belief in an orderly universe.

Evolution, if taken strictly in the Richard Dawkins sense is ultimately a question
of origins science which is really about history.

Isaac Newton discovered the spectrum of light, James Clerk Maxwell discovered the
laws of electromagnetism which led to the prediction of electromagnetic radiation;
Louis Pasteur formulated the germ theory of disease and disproved spontaneous
generation, Joseph Lister pioneered antiseptic surgery; Raymond Damadian pioneered
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that is a vital tool in brain research. Guess
what they all have in common ? THEY ARE ALL BELIEVERS IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

The argument I often hear is even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it
does not mean that all are.

Actually, the arguments are based on analogy, a common scientific procedure, about
what we can observe being produced by intelligent and unintelligent causes.

"If design is ruled out..."

It isn't.

Well, thank you, that's all I wanted to hear.

Therefore, the Dover lawsuit is a bad idea and it was bad decision.

Investigators do not postulate supernatural causes for fires.

And who said that Intelligence has to be SUPERNATURAL ?
There are many agnostics in the ID movement who don't invoke the supernatural.

"I'm glad to make your day."

:)

:) TO YOU TOO :) :-)

Because you like postmodernist, mamby-pamby definitions that muddy meaning.

I don't think my definitions are muddy, they are in fact USAGE WELL UNDERSTOOD.
You are the one who refuse to face the implications of your worldview.

No, it's a scientific statement. There is no evidence any intelligence formed life.

And there is evidence that Random chance formed life ? That's a scientific statement ?
Nope, that's a statement of faith right there.

Your definition of *religious* continues to evolve, ironically.

Nope, your understanding of the word religion fails to catch the ultimate implication
of many Evolutionists.

This exchange was prompted by someone who argued that the link I provided
for the DISCOVERY website article is NOT valid scientfically because it
is APOLOGETICS.

My argument is DISCOVERY FELLOWS are NOT ALL believers in God. Many are agnostic.

Therefore, the implication that those who argue against evolution ( especially
NS+RM forming life ) is misleading to say the least.

True. Nobody says it did.

Good, then there are at least two possibilities -- intelligence and NS+RM.

But to say nobody says it did is to ignore men like
Richard Dawkins and his myriad supporters. SOMEBODY SAID
IT DID.

I gather you are agnostic about it. For me, in the light of current evidence,

I favor the former.

Which means there should be no legal coercion against some teacher FREELY wanting students
to read about the alternative to methodological naturalism.

"NOPE IT DOES NOT."

Sure it does. That is why you want to use it, because it's such a vague definition.

"IN FACT RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY DEFINES RELIGION THUSLY :"

Funny, I got this when looking at Random House's definition:

"-is a concern over what exists beyond the visible world (operating through faith and intuition, as opposed to reason);
-generally includes the idea of the existence of a single being, a group of beings, an eternal principle, or transcendental spiritual entity that has created the world, that governs it, that controls its destinies, or that intervenes occasionally in the natural course of its history;
-is a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects; and
-is the idea that ritual, prayer, spiritual exercises, or certain principles and conduct arise naturally as a human response to the belief in such a being or eternal principle."

Here is the ones you decided to ignore earlier:

n.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

If you want to do a *battle of the dictionaries*, you will lose. The vast majority of definitions for religion are about belief in a supernatural agent.

"Why ? This is not a tenet deducible by the experimental method, but a
philosophical assumption from outside science."

It IS the experimental method. There is no way to operate scientifically without methodological naturalism.

"Well, thank you, that's all I wanted to hear.

Therefore, the Dover lawsuit is a bad idea and it was bad decision. "

No, design isn't ruled out because there is no way to do so. There is no way to make it a part of science. It's not a scientific claim, it's a theological claim. It's untestable.

"And who said that Intelligence has to be SUPERNATURAL ? "

Nobody.

"I don't think my definitions are muddy,..."

That's probably true for you.

"And there is evidence that Random chance formed life ? That's a scientific statement ?"

Nobody says that *random chance* formed life.

"This exchange was prompted by someone who argued that the link I provided
for the DISCOVERY website article is NOT valid scientfically because it
is APOLOGETICS."

It's not science because it's untestable theology.

"Therefore, the implication that those who argue against evolution ( especially
NS+RM forming life )"

Nobody says that NS+mutations formed life.

"Good, then there are at least two possibilities -- intelligence and NS+RM."

Nobody is saying that NS+mutations was responsible for the formation of life. ID as the cause is untestable.

"But to say nobody says it did is to ignore men like
Richard Dawkins and his myriad supporters. SOMEBODY SAID
IT DID. "

No they didn't.

"Which means there should be no legal coercion against some teacher FREELY wanting students
to read about the alternative to methodological naturalism. "

In their private school, fine. In a government school, ID has no place in a science class, as it's not even close to being science.
Your caps are still on. Please take those meds.