Replies

Yea, well, imagine away, that's what makes for good science fiction, however, before we blame the cambrian explosion on the rigelian lizard people, we should look into less surprising natural explanations

This sums up this debate quite nicely - it is the battle of the dogmas. In this corner we have the Dogma of Deity in which design is the first assumption on which all arguments are based. And in this corner we have the Dogma of Materialism in which materialism is the first assumption on which all arguments are based.

Only problem is "Men of Science" should go where the data leads - not be lead by dogma.

Perhaps you can tell us how science can abandon empiricism and still be science. Give us an example where a supernatural explanation has been demonstrated to be superior to natural explanations.

This sums up this debate quite nicely - it is the battle of the dogmas. In this corner we have the Dogma of Deity in which design is the first assumption on which all arguments are based. And in this corner we have the Dogma of Materialism in which materialism is the first assumption on which all arguments are based.

Science is not philosophical strong materialism. Science concerns itself with material explanations of material phenomenon, because that's the function of science. Science has neither the competence, nor the interest to formulate opinions for or against the notion that God guides each little sperm to each little egg, by materially indetectable supernatural intervention.

The only pitched battle here is in the overactive, paranoid imaginations of creationists.