Replies

["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.

Those who practiced Bloodletting did so in the name of [scientific] medicine...

Not so much: "The story of bloodletting is intertwined in the mysterious fabric of medical lore; it originated from magic and religious ceremonies....Witch doctors and sorcerers were called on to drive out the evil spirits and demons. Bloodletting was a method for cleansing the body of ill-defined impurities and excess fluid....

"Health depended on the proper balance of these humors. Bloodletting was, therefore, a method used for adjusting on of the four body humors to proper balance...."

As opposed to: "The new 'scientific' or 'experimental' medicine (where results are testable and repeatable) replaced early Western traditions of medicine, based on herbalism, the Greek "four humours" and other pre-modern theories."

Just saying it was scientific doesn't make it so.

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.

Sorry, that happens not to be the case.

Most scientists have a hard time accepting ID because it is religion masquerading as pseudo-science hoping to be mistaken for junk science.

Its history is clear; the modern iteration of ID came about after the Edwards decision of the U.S. Supreme Court removed creation "science" from the classrooms. On old and dormant idea was dusted off and repackaged as "science" in the hope of fooling some school boards.

Remember "cdesign proponentsists” from the Dover trial? Here is the smoking gun (courtesy of Panda's Thumb):

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”
Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

The authors of this book did a cut-and-paste to change "creationists" to "design proponents" -- but one cut-and-paste wasn't done correctly. We have a missing link between the two terms -- "cdesign proponentsists" which shows the evolution of creation science into intelligent design.

Now, can you think of any reason scientists would reject religious belief dishonestly masquerading as science?