Replies

"It would be better if you read about the subject - a brief history - before making sweeping comments such as the above. You may have a gut feeling about it, but that's all."

Astrology has NEVER been able to accurately predict behavior, or events, or the price of beef. I have read about early science, and the interplay between astrology and astronomy. That doesn't make the astrological aspects any more scientific.

"You forgot to include design. You also forgot to provide an example of science that could be practiced without intelligence, design, or some combination of the two."

You forgot to read my post. I said that the ONLY intelligence needed for science is HUMAN. I never said that intelligence was not required for the practice of science. I never said that matter acting according to regular, predictable laws did not exist. I DO deny that that necessitates an *intelligent designer*. The claim that the regularity of the world could just *be* is EQUALLY consistent with the observed world as the claim that an intelligent designer created everything. Neither is a scientific claim, since there is no way, with just the evidence before us, to tell which is right.

And what good is saying that the world is made by an *intelligent designer*, if, by your own admission, the only thing we can know about said designer through the physical evidence, is that the world is regular? Anything else we can know about the *designer* can only be known through revelation from this designer. I can look at the world and see the regularity and try to understand that regularity without EVER contemplating whether this regularity comes from the nature of the universe or from the actions of a designer. The question is moot. My investigation of the universe will go on exactly the same no matter which philosophical position I choose.