To: xzins
That does not change the fact that science deals with things that are observable.
No one can say that ID or he ism of the day is not true. What we can decide is whether a statement is scientific or not. We can say whether a methodology is valid or not. We can say whether there is evidence supporting a statement or not.
The problem with ID is not that it isn't true, but that it isn't science. It hasn't made any statements that qualify as a hypothesis. To the extent it has -- by suggesting that blood clotting or flagella are irreducible -- it has been demonstrated to be false. The more we learn about complex mechanisms, the more reducible they become. This has been a consistent trend in science since its earliest days.
236 posted on
10/11/2005 8:52:39 AM PDT by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: js1138
And my point is that sometimes, because things are unknown, we don't even know the questions to ask...much less, the methods to use.
244 posted on
10/11/2005 9:07:31 AM PDT by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson