>>Since this is the opposite of the sssumptions of science,
>>you should expect to be ignored unless you come up with some
>>killer evidence.
>Right there is where MY criticism comes in. That little word
>that scientists often do but never admit to often enough:
>Assume.
It is not the assumptions of science, it is the nature of science. Science requires that any theory must posses the property of potential falsifiability. Without this property it is not possible to refute or improve theories based on observation and experimentation and progress via the scientific method.
The various theories of evolution are scientific since they enable one to make predictions (not necessarily accurate) which can be tested. The theory of ID is not scientific since it doesn't enable one to make predictions and therefore does not posses the property of potentially falsifiability.
Science is a consistent system of gaining knowledge about the world as it can be percieved and measured via our human faculties (and aided by various instruments.) However, just because something is not within the scope of science doesn't mean that it is false. Many scientist subscribe to this notion and many religious people think this is a principle of science. In fact, the notion that a theory is false just because it is non-scientific is in itself non-scientific in the formal sense that it is non-falsifiable statement. Science can say nothing, one way or the other, about a theory that does not enable one to make predictions about measurable observables; those things are in the purview of intuition, mystical insight and religious revelation - facilities no less critical to our human nature than the rational thinking that drives science.
The various theories of evolution are scientific since they enable one to make predictions (not necessarily accurate) which can be tested. The theory of ID is not scientific since it doesn't enable one to make predictions and therefore does not posses the property of potentially falsifiability.
So what makes "science" "science" is the fact that it doesn't search for "truth"
No wonder I prefer philosophy. I'd much rather KNOW than simply always say "hey this is cool, I wish it meant something."
Oh well.
That makes it my arrogance versus your willful lack of conclusions. A matter of preference then.