[freespirited]

Isaac Newton was brilliant about some things and a real kook about others. He spent a ridiculous amount of his time on alchemy.

The problem with the ID people is that they have yet to set forth a falsifiable hypothesis, collect data to test it, analyze the data and publish their findings in a peer-reviewed journal. IOW, they talk (almost nonstop) but they don’t deliver what is expected of people who want to be taken seriously as scientists. Until they do, they are going to remain a fringe element.

[Creationist]

Creation research will not be published in the peer reviewed journals, because the secular world does not want a scientific explanation that does not use naturalist causes for the origins of the universe.

And any information that is given by the privately ran Creation research programs is discounted by evolutionary people as useless as somewhere in the explanation is supernatural power.

Everyone who has a greater interest in a particular field or subject and does research and observation and even sometimes experiments is a scientist. You do not have to have a laboratory or a group of people under you or working with you to do science.

Creation science will always be on the fringe as the government has mandated it's tax paid for religion as fact with out any proof.

[RussP]

“Isaac Newton was brilliant about some things and a real kook about others. He spent a ridiculous amount of his time on alchemy.”

Newton was arguably the greatest physicist ever, yet kooks like you chide him for not also being a great chemist — back in what century was it?

That’s like saying that Joe Montana was not a great football player because he stunk as a linebacker.

[RussP]

“The problem with the ID people is that they have yet to set forth a falsifiable hypothesis, collect data to test it, analyze the data and publish their findings in a peer-reviewed journal. IOW, they talk (almost nonstop) but they don’t deliver what is expected of people who want to be taken seriously as scientists. Until they do, they are going to remain a fringe element.”

I can *always* count on seeing the same old crap being regurgitated again and again.

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Do you consider the study of abiogenesis (the origin of the first living cell) to be “scientific”? If so, please explain to me how one can disprove or “falsify” the notion that the first living cell fell into place at random.

That would be like “disproving” the idea that the Gettysburg address once spontaneously appeared on the sands of the Sahara desert by random chance.

[metmom]

Isaac Newton was brilliant about some things and a real kook about others. He spent a ridiculous amount of his time on alchemy.

We know now that alchemy doesn't work. He was just doing the prevailing science of the day when he did his work on alchemy.