Replies

"First, there may be a way to test this inference."

Ok, what is that way?

"Second, it is not testability (or falsifibility) that necessarily define what is, or is not scientific."

No, it is precisely testability and falsifiability that define what is or isn't science.

"Meanwhile, I would like to know why, if something is absolutely true in every sense and by its very nature cannot be falsified, then it is by necessity "unscientific.""

I didn't say it WAS true in every sense, or in any sense. YOU are the one who said that NOTHING could possibly be evidence against your feeling that a Designer exists. You have defined your *theory* to be automatically true, no matter what. It's a classic example of a tautology. Unfortunately for you, that isn't science, that's just your feeling.

"To me the essential falsification of intelligent design would be the disintegration of all particle matter along with all intelligence capable of observing it."

Why? That's just the way the designer designed the universe. It has an expiration date. BTW, the universe will exist just find whether any intelligence is there to know about it.

"The falsification of intelligent design, therefore, would be the end of science altogether."

Since there is no possible falsification of ID, science is safe.

Ok, what is that way?

I did not say there is one. I said there may be one. Unlike you, I am not inclined to rule things out when it comes to the practice of science.

It's a classic example of a tautology. Unfortunately for you, that isn't science, that's just your feeling.

On the contrary, tautologies are of value both logically and scientifically. They have little to do with intuition, or feelings. But even intuition and feelings have a place in science. Those who deny it build themselves a weak soapbox. It is you who are operating with a false notion of science, both in regard to its practice and limitations.

It is not as though the notion of "no intelligent designer" is falsifiable either. One can trump anything seen by saying, "Nature did it through unguided, undesigned processes." If you want falsibilty and testability alone to be the standard by which anything is rendered scientific, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander, baby.

If there is a.) such thing as intelligence, and b.) such thing as design, then there is no reason science cannot at some point reasonably test for it and detect it. You stretch science to the point of a gross caricature of reason in suggesting there is "no evidence for intelligent design" when so much matter is organized to carry out purposeful function on a scale both micro and macroscopic.

You've indulged your hatred of God to the point of insanity, and it is unbecoming.