[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I was saying that it would not be the first time the 'current science' was proven total wrong. My example being bloodletting.

That's actually a good example, but not of science being wrong, because the theory and practice of bloodletting wasn't based on science as we know it--just because it was practiced by doctors doesn't mean it was "medical science." In fact, it was based on the kind of logic-based, experiment-free philosophizing (about plethoras and humors, in this case) that we're supposed to value so highly when it leads to conclusions about a Designer.

[Fichori]

["I was saying that it would not be the first time the 'current science' was proven total wrong. My example being bloodletting."]

(Bloodletting was the 'current science' of those who practiced it.)

"That's actually a good example, but not of science being wrong, because the theory and practice of bloodletting wasn't based on science as we know it--just because it was practiced by doctors doesn't mean it was "medical science." In fact, it was based on the kind of logic-based, experiment-free philosophizing (about plethoras and humors, in this case) that we're supposed to value so highly when it leads to conclusions about a Designer."
(Emphasis mine.)

Very nicely spun.

Those who practiced Bloodletting did so in the name of [scientific] medicine...
Much in the same way modern Scientists 'practice' [scientific] Evolution.

I was comparing the religious belief in Bloodletting to the religious belief in Evolution.

You are certainly free to base your conclusions about a Designer on logic-based, expieriment-free philosophy.

When it comes to a discussion of Intelligent Design v. Random Design, I generally prefer to use more empirical methods.

Most 'Scientists' have a hard time accepting ID because it conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs[in Evolution], even though the alternatives[to ID] hold water like a spaghetti strainer.