“don’t of a better term for the supposition of a supreme being without scientific evidence than “religion.””
That may be the conclusion behind it (when the science is realized), however that is NOT the real scientific evidence behind ID/Creation Theory.
“almost 100% of the proponents are religious and seem to approach the issue from a religion P.O.V.”: So what? Just becuase a scientist happens to be “religious” (code word Fundamentalist Christian), does that mean that he doesn’t have right to use science: DOES HE SUDDENLY CHANGE (natural principles, which God has put in place-PHYSICS, etc..)? DOES HE FUDGE/CHEAT: NO (this was rhetorical)!
I don’t give a care what some groups do, the real science behind it is sound!
>>That may be the conclusion behind it (when the science is realized), however that is NOT the real scientific evidence behind ID/Creation Theory.<<
Every time I address this I worry I’m gonna sound like Bill Clinton.... but here goes...
It depends on the meaning of “theory.” Most people learn about “theory” in geometry class where a theory is anything that is proposed but a theorem has been proved.
But in advanced science a theory is a well substantiated explanation - not just a proposal. But a theory is never proved and never becomes a theorem because it is always subject to new evidence.
So.. to a scientist, you can’t I.D. a theory because it not substantiated. And I.D. certainly is not a “useful theory” because it doesn’t make predictions that can be tested that are not made by other theories.
And to a scientist its not an insult to say evolution is theory - so are lots of scientific principles used routinely to do useful work.
I’m sorry for the semantics but I think the words being used are part of the problem here. There are of course serious fundamental differences too but it would help if we can eliminate the language problems so we can at least understand each other.
>>“almost 100% of the proponents are religious and seem to approach the issue from a religion P.O.V.”: So what? Just becuase a scientist happens to be “religious” (code word Fundamentalist Christian), does that mean that he doesn’t have right to use science: DOES HE SUDDENLY CHANGE (natural principles, which God has put in place-PHYSICS, etc..)? DOES HE FUDGE/CHEAT: NO (this was rhetorical)!<<
Well, if humans were without flaw it wouldn’t matter.
Did you see the report that two studies showed mercury in most high fructose corn syrup? The first thing I did was look up the principle researcher for each report. Turns out its the same guy. So I looked into his agenda. If he had spent his life opposing corn syrup I would have factored that into my reaction.