Replies

NO matter WHO the designer is, it is NONFALSIFIABLE, therefore it is NONscientific.

Until you can prove that an intelligent designer exists, then you are stuck with a NONscientific theory if you use an intelligent designer to explain it.

That is your premise, and it is NOT scientific, therefore your theory falls into the same category.

NONSCIENTIFIC....

On the contrary. ID is falsifiable, you just have to show that the actually existing biological systems could have evolved by natural selection, BY SHOWING A PATHWAY INVOLVING A SEQUENCE OF SMALL CHANGES TO FUNCTIONING SYSTEMS. This has been done in many cases of macro-evolution, but the situation is much different in the realm of complex biochemical reactions and "molecular machines" like the bacterial flagellum; for many famous examples there no remotely plausible path has been proposed.

Strictly speaking, that would just show ID us unnecessary, but that's as good as false.

You are actually arguing that ID cannot be VERIFIED, not that it cannot be falsified -- but that is not a problem for a scientific theory, all good theories are provisional and remain susceptible to refinement or refutation by further experimental investigation.

Suppose they decode some of the "junk DNA" all human genomes carry, and find that it is a "signature" -- a set of coordinates relative to galactic clusters that identifies a solar system, say, or a chapter from Genesis. I think this is extremely unlikely, but it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE and would constitute good enough proof that an intelligence had designed (part of) our genome. Therefore even the criticism that ID is not VERIfiable is not correct, though it may never actually be verified and it MAY be falsified (it would be falsified if we could figure out how all the "irreducibly complex" systems could have come into being by Darwinian natural selection, but this is also far away).

NO matter WHO the designer is, it is NONFALSIFIABLE, therefore it is NONscientific.

WRONG! Just because it currently is "nonfalsifiable" does not mean it is nonscientific (the position COULD be proven - this renders your statement null and void) and currenly ALL theories of the origin of life, matter, the universe are "nonfalsifiable"

Until you can prove that an intelligent designer exists, then you are stuck with a NONscientific theory if you use an intelligent designer to explain it.

You really don't understand science. What you are saying is "a theory is nonscientific until it is proven"!!! Do you understand that would mean nearly EVERY theory in nonscientific.

Taking you logic further - science can only create theories that are proven. That has got to be some of the silliest logic!

That is your premise, and it is NOT scientific, therefore your theory falls into the same category.

Using your logic, NO theories related to cosmology are scientific.

by discounting the possability of ID you leave out all the scientific material in the bible.
for example the hydrologic cycle(Job 36:27-28), or the currents and paths in the oceans(Psalm 8:8), or that the earth is round(Isaiah 40:22)that what we call matter is made of particles that are not visable to the naked eye(Hebrews 11:3)or how about the circular flow of air around the earth(Ecclesiastes 1:6-7)
all this and more was written long before science began investigating the world we live in.
how did the men who wrote this book over a 1500 year span of time know about these facts?
ID can and does explane all of this. that life began from a single cell in a toxic soup(think about the ocean with out any plants or any living thing in it and the land with out plants and the atmosphere with out the current consentration of oxygen, nitrogen and other gases) is not possible with out outside intervention.
the diversity and complexity of each form of life that now and has existed cannot be adequately explaned by evolution. evolution itself can not be definitivly tested in a lab as their are no living forms of life undergoing an evolutionary change at this time or in time past. and what has stopped the evolutionary cycle? nothing. that is why the "missing link" will never be found.