[crail]

Good article by the way.

The concept makes no attempts to verify the creation myth or other major biblical events, such as the flood, he says. Nor does it worry about whether Earth is a few thousand years old, as most creationists believe, or four-and-a-half billion years old, the current geological estimate. Intelligent design, Cordova notes, does not even attempt to prove the type of deity involved, it just points to some sort of supernatural intervention. In other words, he says: "Intelligent design doesn't have any theology to it."

So it's a "scientific" theory that makes no predictions, and has no explanitory power past "god did it," without knowing who's god or how, and can't answer the "when" question even to within *6 orders of magnitude*!!! I hope I've got that straight.

[chronic_loser]

So it's a "scientific" theory that makes no predictions, and has no explanitory power past "god did it," without knowing who's god or how, and can't answer the "when" question even to within *6 orders of magnitude*!!! I hope I've got that straight.>>>

So, IF physical evidence points to a non-empirical entity (not arguing that point at present, just laying down the supposition), we should reject it because by definition the non-empirical entity is beyond the scientfic method? Who slipped that assumption in while I was not looking? This is prejudice, cold and solid, and has nothing to do with science itself. It is a rigid insistence that reality be defined as ONLY that which is observable, quantifiable, and explainable. Hold that if you wish, but don't ask me to call it "science." It ain't.

[AmishDude]

Better than a "science" which is filled with ad hoc hackery and populated with "scientists" who go into the field because they can't handle calculus.