Replies

"Your answer to the first part of my post implies that science is but a subset of the search for truth; that science is concerned with those things which may be explained and predicted. Yet, here you change the definition of science as being that which is "hard facts" based. Again, you seem to define truth (hard facts) as only that which can be explained and/or reproduced."

No, I'm defining SCIENCE as "only that which can be explained or reproduced".

"By your definition, do there exist hard facts which can neither be explained nor reliably reproduced? ...or does inexplicability or irreproducibility negate the existence of hard fact?"

Yes, of course there do exist such hard facts--and finding the eplanations of those is what science is all about, so "no"--simply because something is currently "inexplicable or irreproducible" doesn't "negate the existence of hard fact", but that does mean that whatever that particular "hard fact" is, is not yet "science".

This is why I simply don't buy the idea of "irreducible complexity" as an argument for "intelligent design". Just because something APPEARS "irreducibly complex" by today's knowledge base doesn't mean that it "is" REALLY "irreducibly complex".

Then it seems there really isn't much difference between the two; only the question of whence the unknown cometh. It seems the anti-ID scientists view the trinity of chance, chaos and mutation as the creators, where ID'ers believe there is a mind controlling the tools.

Both agree there are "things known" and "things not yet known", which are true. Why is it science only if the "things not yet known" didn't come to be by the design of a greater Intelligence?

With this approach, you can simply put off committing to the answer for ever, claiming that the future may yet prove it untrue. Is there a defined threshold where irreducible complexity would become real to you?