[Louis Foxwell]

He may claim that I.D. is science and not religion all day, but that doesn't change the fact that I.D. IS religion and it is NOT science, and as such it has no place in a science classroom.

Because you say it is so we are to bow to your opinion. But sir, you have no credibility here. How are we to believe what you say when your opinion has no value?

[doc30]

Because you say it is so we are to bow to your opinion. But sir, you have no credibility here. How are we to believe what you say when your opinion has no value? Amos, spinestein has credibilty here because he knows the definition of science. I would value the comments of someone who is knowledgeable of the field over someone who is igorant of the field.

[spinestein]

[Because you say it is so we are to bow to your opinion. But sir, you have no credibility here. How are we to believe what you say when your opinion has no value?]



One part of the methodology of science is that there is no weight given to "authority", only weight given to the validity of the evidence provided. My opinion has no value based on who I am, or what my scientific background may be, and neither does anyone else's opinion.

My statement that I.D. is a religion and not a scientific theory stands on its own because it is true and can be demonstrated true by anyone who wants to look up the definition of a scientific theory and compare it to the definition of I.D. as described by its proponents.