[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Fadges? We don't need no stinking fadges!

Would fudge work (yum)?

you have to admit that ID is not a scientific theory. Every scientific theory must be capable of falsification ... or it isn't a scientific theory. There is no middle ground here. (Random chance is a factor, not the factor, by the way).

In that case the "random chance" underpinnings of classical evolution are also in trouble, because you can't prove that either.  As far at the flipping the coin example that you used earlier, I can flip a coin and guarantee with a high degree of accuracy what it will be before I even see it.  In fact, any magician worth his salt can do that easily.  Because we cannot understand all the factors involved in a "fair flip" doesn't mean that it is truly random.

But I think of it less a theory than a theorem.  I never said that ID was true.  I just stated that it is not false.  Another two points: How do you know that random chance is a factor (since all experimentation and inductive logic making conclusions are themselves the product if ID) and just how random is random chance?

Every classical and neo-classical theory on evolution that I've seen assumes random chance at its heart, although many deny this.  The core argument is not how life may or may not change, but how life started.  If evolutionists admit that the start of life was due to anything other than to total random chance, they are admitting to an ID element.  If ID is an element to evolution, then random chance only appears random.

[Gumlegs]

Would fudge work (yum)?

Of course fudge would work! A lot experiments have a fudge factor!

Me: [Y]ou have to admit that ID is not a scientific theory. Every scientific theory must be capable of falsification ... or it isn't a scientific theory. There is no middle ground here. (Random chance is a factor, not the factor, by the way).

In that case the "random chance" underpinnings of classical evolution are also in trouble, because you can't prove that either.

Remember, we're talking about something being capable of being falsified, not being capable of being proved. And "random chance" takes in a lot of territory, including things we don't normally think of as being there.

As far at the flipping the coin example that you used earlier, I can flip a coin and guarantee with a high degree of accuracy what it will be before I even see it. In fact, any magician worth his salt can do that easily. Because we cannot understand all the factors involved in a "fair flip" doesn't mean that it is truly random.

Magician? A magician can manipulate the result, but that's not what I've been talking about. I don't really understand your paragraph. Are you saying that no given sequence of coin flips can possibly be random?

But I think of it less a theory than a theorem. I never said that ID was true. I just stated that it is not false.

And I didn't say it was false; I said it was not scientific.

Another two points: How do you know that random chance is a factor (since all experimentation and inductive logic making conclusions are themselves the product if ID) and just how random is random chance?

Every classical and neo-classical theory on evolution that I've seen assumes random chance at its heart, although many deny this. The core argument is not how life may or may not change, but how life started. If evolutionists admit that the start of life was due to anything other than to total random chance, they are admitting to an ID element. If ID is an element to evolution, then random chance only appears random.

Again, the theory of evolution does not address "how life started."