If both options have the same explanatory power, then NEITHER can be chosen over the other.You're finally getting somewhere. Congratulations.
God may be examinable by science at some later date. Right now, He isn't.
For whom do you speak, and from what knowledge?
Why do you want to make a mockery of both science and theology?
It is hardly a "mockery" of science to posit the idea that organized matter that behaves according to prectable laws is best explained by intelligent design. Nor is it a mockery of theology to suggest that God really did, and really does do, what He says.
'If both options have the same explanatory power, then NEITHER can be chosen over the other.' (me)
"You're finally getting somewhere. Congratulations." (you)
Is that a joke? I've been saying since day one that you can't make a choice between there being a God or there not being a God using science. It's strictly a theological/philosophical question. YOU have been the one saying otherwise.
"For whom do you speak, and from what knowledge?"
Now you're going back to science being able to chose again. Please, find a position and stick with it.
"It is hardly a "mockery" of science to posit the idea that organized matter that behaves according to prectable laws is best explained by intelligent design."
You JUST SAID that NEITHER OPTION {explaining everything with a Designer(God), explaining everything without a Designer(God)} could be chosen over the other. How on Earth can one of these options *best explain* things if BOTH have the same epxlanitory power and neither can chosen over the other?? This is completely illogical.