[js1138]

Back to the thread topic? Well here is where we let off:

ID proponents could put a rather rapid end to their persecution simply by publishing a testable hypothesis that is consistent with currently available data, and which projects data yet to be found.

One can only characterize as crank science, a conjecture that asserts an unspecified entity did something at some unspecified time using unspecified methods for unknown reasons.

It is difficult to argue against the proposition that a entity having infinite capabilities might have been the cause of everything we see. Perhaps gravity really is a manifestation of angels pushing and pulling things around. Prove otherwise.

Science, of course, does not attempt to prove otherwise. It simply asks the question, “Can we find regularities in nature that obviate the need for hypothesising demiurges having arbitrary means, methods and motives?” Anyone not asking this question is not engaging in science.

[SirLinksalot]

ID proponents could put a rather rapid end to their persecution simply by publishing a testable hypothesis that is consistent with currently available data, and which projects data yet to be found.

Nice to know that we're back on track.

Notice what Dembski and Marks are actually doing -- THEY ARE DOING WORK THAT *TESTS* their theories. Now how on earth can you publish something if the very *act* of working on it is being suppressed ?

*THAT* has always been the issue.

One can only characterize as crank science, a conjecture that asserts an unspecified entity did something at some unspecified time using unspecified methods for unknown reasons.

Well, since random mutation is an entity that has never been observed to produce the complexity that we see, then it looks like that qualifies as well....

It is difficult to argue against the proposition that a entity having infinite capabilities might have been the cause of everything we see.

As it is difficult to argue that a non-entity might have been the cause of everything. THAT is the reason why after over a hundred years of trying to convince the public ( including taking control of most of academia ), Darwinists aren't making any dent at all.

Perhaps gravity really is a manifestation of angels pushing and pulling things around. Prove otherwise.

Notice how you are equating an OBSERVED phenomenon with unobserved ones -- Random mutation.

Science, of course, does not attempt to prove otherwise. It simply asks the question, “Can we find regularities in nature that obviate the need for hypothesising demiurges having arbitrary means, methods and motives?” Anyone not asking this question is not engaging in science. Disagree. We can also ask a simple question --- When we find regularities and complexity in nature ( as we do ), is the phenomenon better explained by design or chance ?