[Fester Chugabrew]

Words like "intelligence," "design," "simple," "complex," etc. are notably absent from the vocabulary of dogmatic Darwinists. While science makes use of all these things, Darwinists are loath to define them or uise them in their vocabulary. When it is pointed out how they embrace a biological history from simple to complex organisms, which in itself is reasonable, some of their disciples shun such language, as if science is incapable of even expressing the idea of simple or complex.

What is more, science by nature entails reasonable conjecture. It is hardly unreasonable to conjecture that, where there is organized matter, there may be a designer. Indeed, every instance of organized matter may be reasonably construed as evidence of intelligent design.

A good many of Darwins disciples loudly proclaim themselves as sole arbiters of what consitutes science, invoking words such as "hypotheses," "falsifiability," "scientific method" all the while disavowing the overarching principle(s) they themselves have adopted as observers, as if science can somehow entirely divest itself of subjectivity, general principles, and philosophy.

Many of them furthermore assert that words such as "faith" and "belief" must only be applied to religion, when in fact none of them have direct knowledge of evolution, but have only reasonable conjecture and inference subjectively drawn from a static record. No one has directly observed a transition from ape to human. One may only subjectively infer as much.

But what are they afraid of? A theocracy? That "real science" will somehow be damaged? I don't think so.

[moog]

Words like "intelligence," "design," "simple," "complex," etc. are notably absent from the vocabulary

Heck, they're absent from most people's vocab--especially mine.

[bvw]

Only Karl Popper's "falsi-fallity" definition of science is allowed! Forgotten is Lord Kelvin's admonishment to "have numbers". The anti-Scientific Design crowd has no numbers of probabilities, chemical rates of reaction, etc.

I use the proper term "Scientific Design", rather than the less explanatory "Intelligent Design". For not only is the Universe's design obviously intelligent -- it is obviously condusive to and even welcoming of "Science".