[DC Bound]

The parallel is that in the natural world, there are phenomenon that don't fit naturalistic explanations. That is not to say science is a game--it is saying the rules of science aren't competent to describe everything, all the time, when science is limited naturalistic explanations. Unless I'm missing something really obvious, the only logical retort is to deny these phenomenon exist, or to admit science needs to grow to be able to address them. What am I missing?

[ml1954]

That is not to say science is a game--it is saying the rules of science aren't competent to describe everything, all the time, when science is limited naturalistic explanations. Unless I'm missing something really obvious, the only logical retort is to deny these phenomenon exist, or to admit science needs to grow to be able to address them.

There you go again....trying to redefine science. I think you'll need something better than ID to be successful in this.