Replies

I have indicated that there is science...not that it is irrefutable, any more than Darwin's or other theories are irrefutable. If any of them were (and they are not) we would not be having this discussion, they would not be termed "theories".

Nothing in science is "irrefutable". That's the nature of science.

Behe's "Irreducably Comples" writings have been debunked countless times. Dembksi's arguments of probability are based upon faulty assumptions (among things, he assumes that the first life forms must have come about through a specific configuration and no other, yet he has no reason to assume that only one specific configuration would work, meaning that the basis for his probability analysis is meaningless). And ultimately you're trying to push faulty arguments that attack evolution, however arguments against evolution are not arguments in favour of "design". Falsify evolution tomorrow and you still won't have demonstrated that "Intelligent Design" is valid science.

Interesting...

Your words...

Nothing in science is "irrefutable". That's the nature of science.

Behe's "Irreducably Comples" writings have been debunked countless times. Dembksi's arguments of probability are based upon faulty assumptions

So, the science that supposedly debunked Behe (and I say supposedly because it is clear that if he had been thoroughly debunked he would not still be in the position he is in), and the belief that Dembksi's assumptions were false is irrefutable?

I honestly do not think so, and based on what you said the nature of science is, I do not believe you think so either. Therefore, in answer to your original question to point to some of the science that is part of ID, I have done so. You simply do not believe it.,

...and that falls right in line with what I have been saying. If a person (through scientific method and their own objective reasoning) has a disposition (or call it faith) to believe it one theory or another, they will look at it from that perspective and...short of absolute, irrefutable fact to the contrary...they will seek to expand it. Same is true on the other side of the equation.

Elements of science and belief are equally used on both sides of this equation IMHO. I still believe that the objective reasoning arguements are stronger for ID...but that is my perspective, disposition and faith in the matter. You are perfectly free to believe otherwise.

"Behe's "Irreducably Comples" writings have been debunked countless times."

By you, Dimensio? No, not by you. In your comic book world, Behe has been "debunked" by articles you've read on the Internet. How nice.

Are you down with String Theory? If so, please tell me how it can be tested.