Replies

Thanks, again, for the link. I have worn out the google searches and I am not searching college databases, the lists are endless but it allows me to see some of the more current studies. It is also easier to find rebuttals to them with google to see the broader picture. I believe I've read most of the Creationist/ID sites, and check back frequently, but again, even though I believe in the ID model generally there are still MAJOR gaps that need to be filled, but that goes both ways.The only way to see the whole picture is to keep as many tabs on everyone involved.

My quest it to keep seeking and enjoy the journey.

My quest it to keep seeking and enjoy the journey.

Mine too! I have found that most scientists live for the increases in knowledge that they hope to produce.

(Some of the greatest discoveries have come not from "Eureka!" but from "Hmmmmm. That's funny!")

I believe I've read most of the Creationist/ID sites, and check back frequently, but again, even though I believe in the ID model generally there are still MAJOR gaps that need to be filled, but that goes both ways.The only way to see the whole picture is to keep as many tabs on everyone involved.

There is another way to look at this: ID may be true, but, even if it is, it's not science.

The word "science," as generally used today, usually means specifically natural science. How the universe works free from outside interference.

ID, for the most part, assumes a supernatural hand in the matter. Therefore, it is not science. This doesn't mean it's not true. Indeed, I have a strong suspicion that ID is true, to the extent that God has fiddled with things now and again, to get them on a track that He finds more interesting. However, because ID implies a supernatural agent, it is by definition not science.

Science is the study of the universe at default -- how it acts without a supernatural agency acting on it. Bring a supernatural agent into the discussion, and the subject is no longer science, regardless of the truth of the matter.