[nasamn777]

2) If we accept the assumption that the DNA works in a regular fashion, with definite, more-or-less specifiable behaviour given a specific set of conditions, then we can still learn to probe, then to control its behaviour, then to get rich or famous or both by controlling its behaviour. All this without worrying about how it got there or how its properties arose.

This all sounds nice and dandy but this is not what happens! The Naturalists preach their theology and call it science -- it (the world, life etc) can only originated by natural processes, thus any notion of God or Gods is soundly ridiculed as simplistic and irrational. The origin of life by natural processes may be true, but it may not. Problems exist such as the Cambrian explosion. The sheer complexity of life is staggering. Putting a straitjacket on science limits investigation and inquiry. Examining irreducibly complex components of biological systems; investigating supposed CSI biological systems; examining the coupled and complex systems of life are all legitimate scientific endeavors.

[grey_whiskers]

This all sounds nice and dandy but this is not what happens! The Naturalists preach their theology and call it science -- it (the world, life etc) can only originated by natural processes, thus any notion of God or Gods is soundly ridiculed as simplistic and irrational.

Sorry, I think we're miscommunicating.

I agree that there is the *RISK* involved in the natural sciences, of

neglecting the supernatural,

then deciding that by Occam's razor the supernatural is not necessary for what you happen to be studying,

then being so successful at naturalistic predictions that you leave out the supernatural altogether,

then concluding that there is not, and never has been a supernatural,

and as an adjunct assuming that the supernatural is merely, and has only been, an abortive attempt at explanation of the world, rightly superceded by the scientific method.

Apparently some scientists, and some "camp followers" of the scientific endeavor, really DO feel this way.

But NOT ALL.

Leading with a strawman argument will not earn you respect or credence on these threads.

Cheers!

[shubi]

"Problems exist such as the Cambrian explosion"

It is not a problem. In recent years many more examples of precambrian fossils have been found. Calling the Cambrian an "explosion" is a bit of a stretch, anyway. It was over millions of years. We see the evolution of forms from the beginning of the Cambrian to the end. How does ID explain that? Does every little detail of anatomy change get separately designed?

Science doesn't waste its time investigating "systems" that are fantasies of misinterpreters of the Bible.