Because ID is not science, and Creationism doesn't even vaguely try to be.
Can you show us what’s not scientific in this observation?
It's a statement of opinion without any empirical evidence backing it up, but it seems fairly sound as far as it goes. It also does not undermine the theory of evolution. We know little about the origins of life, and evolutionary theory does not depend on any particular hypothesis on the subject.
Actually alot of scientists disagree.
It's a statement of opinion without any empirical evidence backing it up, but it seems fairly sound as far as it goes. It also does not undermine the theory of evolution. We know little about the origins of life, and evolutionary theory does not depend on any particular hypothesis on the subject.
You didn't at all answer the question. Perhaps you can show us what's particularly religious in his observations?
Because I keep hearing these ridiculous assertions that it's not science and it's just religion, yet this chemist speaks of the science with not one mention of religion, speaking of no empirical evidence to back your assertions up....!!!