Replies

"Clearly you work with your own limited definition of science."

I work with the definition that all scientists have used from Galileo and Newton till today. You work with your made up feelings about what you wish science to be.

"Mine is wide enough to accomodate, among other things, indirect evidence to substantiate intelligent design as operative in every aspect of the universe."

Yours is wide enough to accommodate anything, including logical fallacies and untestable emotions. If your *indirect evidence* can substantiate intelligent design in every aspect of the universe, how does the universe differ from one where the laws of nature just *are* and weren't designed? How would you know the difference between your intelligently designed universe and one whose regularity just *was*?

"All you can do with your definition is say, "We don't know and we can't know." So go ahead and throw up your hands in defeat."

In this case it is proper to do so, because there is no way to test any hypothesis we have about a deity or about design. The universe fits more than one possibility, and we don't have the info to make a decision.

"Science will carry on and discover, just as it discovered through this unltra-sensitive microscope, that even the smallest particles of matter behave as if they were designed."

Science has found no such thing. Science has found that matter is organized and operates under regular patterns. There is no way to know if this is design or just the nature of matter.

""I asked you whether one can exist completely apart from the other, and you dodged that question as well as you've left a host of other questions unanswered."

You can't even come up with a good definition of either order or design, why should I answer your silly question?

". You're the one who insists science "cannot know" where there is design, and where there is intelligence, and where the two might just be related."

You can't even define them, so I am ahead.

. . . there is no way to test any hypothesis we have about a deity or about design.

How preposterously small is your expectation when it comes to the capabilities of science! Why not start with something as simple as an automobile, which we know is a product of intelligent design. Are you saying it is impossible for science to test a hypothesis about its design?

In almost every case, an automobile is indirect evidence of intelligent design. Are you saying it is impossble for this to be addressed from a scientific standpoint?

Did you have to see humans making an automobile before you inferred it is the product of intelligent design? Did someone have to sit you down and say, "Now, Horsey honey, this is an automobile, and it was designed by humans" before you correctly inferred it might not have sprung up by itself in the desert or grown out in some farmer's field? Did you have to have it all laid out in formal logic complete with a hypothesis and a theory to back it up? Were you "unscientific" and "mystical" for assuming it was designed when you never even saw who, or what, designed it?