[chronic_loser]

The first lie is that there even is a secular movement within science called "Intelligent Design.">>

You misunderstand the issue. It is not a debate on who can "line up" the most scientists or politicians or rabble in the steets to scream louder than the other side. It is a debate over whether there exists a reasonable case that a naturalistic progression from non living matter to living beings in their current state of complexity is the only rational hypothesis. My objection to this whole sorry pile of dreck is that "rational" now means "rationalism" and thus the realm of the supernatural has become defined as "irrational."
The evo crowd bellows over and over that "THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN SCIENCE CLASS" without considering that the assumption that this does not belong in science class is not justified scientifically, but is merely an expression of a prejudiced view of the nature of science.

[mlc9852]

Excellent points. Do you ever feel like you're swimming against the tide? I know I do.

[narby]

So what are you going to replace evolution with?

Claiming that some "intellegence" created species at one time won't wash, because the fossil record refutes it.

Claiming that some "intellegence" created species over billions of years is irrational, because then that intellegence should still be here among us, and there is no evidence of this.

So what are you going to replace evolution with, once you've criticised it into oblivion?

[crail]

What limits would you then put on what can call itself science, and what is too big for science? Mine are that it can be addressed with the scientific method, that you can't appeal to miraculous events. Just out of interest sake, I'd like to know yours. For example, philisophical pondering of morality and meaning? I understand you don't like the current definition of scientific material, but what limits yours?

[VadeRetro]

You misunderstand the issue.

No, I don't. You do. Your disgust with rationalism, materialism, whatever is unrelated to the preponderance of evidence for common descent, an old Earth, etc. Science has not been doing science wrong for the last 200 years. Get over it.

[narby]

My objection to this whole sorry pile of dreck is that "rational" now means "rationalism" and thus the realm of the supernatural has become defined as "irrational."

I'm sure the astrologers of the world celebrate that you're taking up their supernatural cause. I think I'm a Sagittarius. Wonder what my future holds today?

You do realize that once the "supernatural" is defined as "rational". Then anything goes. Any faith. Any crackpot whacko with Koolaid and a tent in the jungle is now "rational".

You do realize that Christians are a small minority on this planet, don't you? By making the argument that the supernatural is rational, you're giving more aid to other faiths, than to Christians, merely because of the demographics.

I've heard the screams from DU that Bush and conservatives are attempting to start a theocracy. I've paid them no mind until now. But maybe they're not so far off after all.