[Just mythoughts]

To debate you must be talking about the same subject using the same framework. ID and Creationists are talking philosophy and theology. People who understand TToE are talking science. It is like saying there is a “debate” between astrology and astronomy.

I sure do not hear the Darwinists/evolutionists complaining about BamaKennedy using that scientific methodology to enforce his philosophy/theology called health care.

Now it may well take a few years of BamaKennedy's tried and true methodology for some to get a wake up and start wailing 'God' help US. It does not matter what anyone believes, we all will get that same return when our flesh dies.

[freedumb2003]

>>I sure do not hear the Darwinists/evolutionists complaining about BamaKennedy using that scientific methodology to enforce his philosophy/theology called health care.<<

The difference is that the arguments for and against AGW are both scientific arguments. The people who argue that AGW is junk science are climatologists using scientific methods and principles to arrive at their conclusions.

The same cannot be said for critics of TToE.

If you have an alternate SCIENTIFIC theory that explains the billions of data points explained by TToE, now is the time to produce it.

[tacticalogic]

I sure do not hear the Darwinists/evolutionists complaining about BamaKennedy using that scientific methodology to enforce his philosophy/theology called health care.

That's because actuary isn't science. The fallacy is the assumption that anything that involves math is "scientific". You will have to find some other way to conflate science with liberalism.