Really? Please let me know when science has the opportunity to start with simple life forms and observe them developing into the variety of species known today, and please advise me how science will be able to ascertain how that development took place apart from either intelligence or design.
A very quick summary as what is required for a theory . . .
I thought these were requirements for "science." And I responded in saying science has the burden of declaring intelligent design unnatural or supernatural before it can eliminate consideration of the same as being "unscientific." On what basis can science declare intelligent design "supernatural" when there are demonstrable cases of intelligent design taking place constantly, our correspondence notwithstanding?
"Really? Please let me know when science has the opportunity to start with simple life forms and observe them developing into the variety of species known today, and please advise me how science will be able to ascertain how that development took place apart from either intelligence or design."
*Sigh* Repeatability of *confirimation/falsification tests* not initial conditions! Do you think we can achieve the conditions involved in stellar evolution or in the Big Bang theory?
"I thought these were requirements for "science." And I responded in saying science has the burden of declaring intelligent design unnatural or supernatural before it can eliminate consideration of the same as being "unscientific." On what basis can science declare intelligent design "supernatural" when there are demonstrable cases of intelligent design taking place constantly, our correspondence notwithstanding?"
From what I just posted:
"...It means non-natural when the proponents of ID claim and purport that non-natural intelligent agencies were behind it. The ID community has long admitted that ID is non-natural. There's nothing for science to demonstrate since the non-natural is not testable. Why do you think ID-proponents are pathetically attacking methodological naturalism?"