Replies

"Which doesn't make it not real."

Nor does it make it real. It's as I said, untestable. You DO understand what that means, right?

"But ID is a reaction to a conventional wisdom that has come to dominiate the scientific establishment that insists that if one doesn't agree that "God didn't do" one can't be a member."

No it isn't. There is no such *conventional wisdom*. Religious people are accepted into science all the time. What is rejected is the interjection of untestable theological claims into a scientific explanation (ID). Science doesn't say *God didn't do it*. Science can't answer the question, one way or the other.

"Once upon a time -- and well-post Darwin -- Christians like Pasteur and Kelvin, who accepted Design axiomatically, ran the scientific societies. Quite a bit of progress occurred during their reigns."

There is no evidence that Pasteur rejected evolution.

"Now, if you have an event for which you make a prediction based on a naturalistic understanding of the world and it turns out completely false, and someone who believe in a Creator makes a prediction about an event that turns out to be true, why would you have higher standing in science that he?"

The two people could be the same person, as theists are quite often made excellent scientists. Your example is poor. What is important is that the claims be testable. ID isn't; it isn't science.

Once upon a time -- and well-post Darwin -- Christians like Pasteur and Kelvin, who accepted Design axiomatically, ran the scientific societies. Quite a bit of progress occurred during their reigns.

An interesting fact is that Lord Kelvin calculated that the Earth was too young to have supported evolution (being unaware of radioactivity). He was wrong; Darwin's estimate was much closer. If Lord Kelvin had accepted the truth of evolution, he could have predicted nuclear energy. Oh well. In other areas of physics, where his eyes were not blocked with the scales of scripture, he did excellent work.