Replies

I am saying ID is not science. That makes you a fine philosopher, but have you scientifically tested this assertion?

There is nothing philosophical when I say ID is not science or to be more precise, a valid scientific theory. Science isn't based on "supernatural" or some "invisible hand" explanation is it? No... quite the contrary. You do not see meterologists blame an "invisible intelligence" explaning the weather do you. Are theories of Gravity explained by an intelligence "pulling" or pushing you down? Volcanologists do not say "that eruption took place because of some unknown intelligence" do they? And thankfully, no aeronautical scientist gives any credit to an invisible hand holding up our airplanes.

Now... why is it that this certain branch of Biology should become the exception??

Is it entitled to be upheld as the only one to enjoy legal status in a public, academic, or scientific context?

Isn't that the beauty of Science... that theories that explain phenomena can be superseded by better theories? Problem is, no one has come up with a better theory for Evolution because the thing has so much evidence backing it up.

Now your problem is, friend, is ID has no evidence. It doesn't stand up to any scientific scrutiny whatsoever. Now if you can come up with a better explanation of what we see in nature then by all means... propose it to the scientific community and let it takes its course. It will either stand on its merits and eventually be adopted... or it will fail. If it is adopted... then by golly then teach it in public schools... otherwise... don't do the old "run around" game where you completely subvert a process that works.

See... you say Evolution gets "special treatment" but that is a LIE. ID is the one wanting special treatment... it wants to be adopted without any scientific scrutiny whatsoever... and to me... that is so wrong.

See... I believe that if it works... use it. If it doesn't... throw it out. Capitalism works and is very successful, communism doesn't. The scientific method works and is very successful... "supernatural explanations" to explain phenomena do not.

So do you see now how this isn't philosophical at all? I wish I knew where you got that one from.