"Making up an answer of "an all-powerful supernatural entity did it" is a cop-out, not an explanation. Just because you can explain absolutely anything with it doesn't mean that it's really "better"."
It's ony a cop-out if you claim it to be the only possible answer.
ID is a theory.
It is true that the "all-powerful supernatural entity did it" theory has been used througout history to explain things that were were able to prove had more mundane explainations once we learned more.
Theories should be questioned. That's the point of the scientific process. Right now what we have it evolution being taught by itself as the only viable theory, which is about the same as teaching that it's a fact. It's a purposful representation of it as more than a thoery because the liberals in our education system don't want to let students consider that there may be a God.
This is really no diferent than the Catholic church trying to crush scientific theories which they felt contradicted their faith.
"What hypothetical observation would falsify Intelligent Design? Be specific. If there are absolutely no hypothetical conditions under which Intelligent Design could be proven false, then Intelligent Design is not science."
Do you understand what a theory is? Just because I don't know how to prove or disprove something does not mean it's not a scientific theory. The search for a way to prove or disprove such a thing is part of the scientific process.
Do some research on Saint Thomas Aquinas for some examples of someone trying to prove or disprove religious theories using the scientific method.
By the way, I studied St. Thomas Aquinas at a public university. It was taught as part of philosophy as was the class I took on logic. Without understanding how to think locically you won't get far in science or philosophy.
Acutally pure sciences tend to have a lot more in common with philosophy than with more applied uses such as I learned in my engineering classes.
" You shouldn't attempt to argue science if you don't even understand how science operates. Theories do not become laws.
"You shouldn't attempt to argue science if you don't even understand how science operates. Theories do not become laws. Laws are not graduated theories. Laws and theories are two different kinds of statements. Laws are generalizations about observations from which future observations are predicted; the "law" of gravity is a generalization about how gravity has been observed to operate in the past from which future predictions about gravitational operation can be made. Theories are an attempt to explain the cause behind observed phenomenon."
You're comment doesn't support your assertion. The law of gravity started as a theory that was then proven to a resaonable standard through experimentation. You observe something. You theorize about it. Then you set out to prove or disprove it. The Newton's laws started out no differently. The laws of thermodynamics started out no differently.
Your theory that laws did not start out as theories is obviously false.
"There's no theory that the world itself "evolved"."
Amusingly enough there has to be such a theory for you to be able to say it's false. You can't discount something until after it's been theorized because without they theory there's noting to discount.
"Please try to understand the scope of evolution before launching an attack on it."
Well, I guess I wasn't specific enough to prevent nitpicking. Please replace where I said the world with living organisms. They still had to start from something in order to evolve, and the theory of evolution does not account for where those first organisms came from.
"Actually, science can only address the natural universe. It cannot address the supernatural in any way. If a religion touches on the supernatural -- and most do -- then science cannot involve itself."
For that to be true you would need a perfect understanding of what is "natural" and what is "supernatural".
Typically things that cannot be proven or disproven end up being considered supernatural. So what makes it so that the theory of evolution isn't considered to pertain to something supernatural?
The stars at one point in time were considered supernatural.
Many things that we have come to understand through the scientific process were once thought to be supernatural.
We're back to the days of the inquisition with the roles reversed.
Religion and science are only incompatible for those who close their minds to one or the other.
The reality of life is that there is much more that we do not know than we actually know, and it will always be that way.
The scientific process is merely an orderly way to learn more about what we don't understand.
These barriers between science and religion are merely mental constructs that are barriers to learning because they limitations on what you are willing to consider possible regardless of you're ability to disprove it.
That's not science. That's dogma.
It's easily proven to not be science through the scientific method.
"Making up an answer of "an all-powerful supernatural entity did it" is a cop-out, not an explanation. Just because you can explain absolutely anything with it doesn't mean that it's really "better"."
****Einstein did, and he is a whole lot smarter than you are. if you don't explain it that way, you are living a comfortable life, but living a lie as well.