Replies

No, evolution is not scientific. It departs from the scientific method when it assumes that observations can be extrapolated into unobserved events. Evolution does the very same thing that ID does, it just invokes naturalism instead of intelligent design. No difference.

So, is theoretical physics nothing but a sham? It can also involve "extrapol[ating] observations into unobserved events."

Was Dr. Richard Sander guilty not of not being scientific when he argued in a paper that without affirmative action, the number of black lawyers would rise? Granted, he is a social scientist. Nevertheless, he "extrapolated observations into unobserved events." So, was he not being scientific?

You're admitting that intelligent design is not natural. Therefore, it has no role in science. Agreed?

Also, Judge Jones wrote "defense experts concede...

No mention of a jury.

"So, is theoretical physics nothing but a sham? It can also involve "extrapol[ating] observations into unobserved events."

It's really very simple. If it's not observable, it's not science.

"You're admitting that intelligent design is not natural. Therefore, it has no role in science. Agreed?"

Not at all. It is just as natural as is evolution and therefore has just as much role in science. Agreed?