Replies

. . . as you have previously said there WAS NO way to make a weighted choice.

I maintain that science is capable of being undertaken with more than one assumption, and that the observer is free to choose those assumptions. Science from a theistic or atheistic point of view is never entirely testable or falsifiable because science is by nature limited. It cannot test every case imaginable. To that extent, and that extent only "neither can be chosen over the other" as absolutely determinative, or descriptive, of objective reality. That is quite alright, because science is not defined by proofs alone, nor will it ever be absolutely determinative or descriptive of objective reality.

The bottom line is that the tired old argument "intelligent design is not science" fails. It is not true. If evolutionism is to be held to the same standards you believe are required of science, then it too should be disqualified as science. Neither you nor anyone else is qualified to assert "scientifically" or "objectively" that God is beyond the scope of science. Neither you nor anyone else has objective "proof" that the history of mankind began with single-celled or simpler creatures and progressed to its current state.

"I maintain that science is capable of being undertaken with more than one assumption, and that the observer is free to choose those assumptions."

We are not free to choose subjective evidence and still be scientific.

"The bottom line is that the tired old argument "intelligent design is not science" fails."

No, it's true. You have already said it isn't objectively testable.

"If evolutionism is to be held to the same standards you believe are required of science, then it too should be disqualified as science."

No, because it's claims are objectively testable.

"Neither you nor anyone else is qualified to assert "scientifically" or "objectively" that God is beyond the scope of science."

You already have. Listen to yourself Fester, you were right then. You said it wasn't objective evidence that tilts the scales towards ID/God. You said it was subjective reasons.

"Neither you nor anyone else has objective "proof" that the history of mankind began with single-celled or simpler creatures and progressed to its current state."

No, but we have objective evidence. As you know, science doesn't deal in proof.