Replies

There are no ID experiments. How could such an experiment be constructed? This is precisely why ID isn't a scientific concept.

Name me one - just one experiment in evolution that is not directed by an outside intelligence.

Every experiment thus far conducted has been designed and carried out by some human entity - thus showing that ID was (and is) very necessary to the implementation and conclusions of said experiments.

Personally, I don't know whether evolution is valid or not. But I do know that there are those on both sides of the debate (but more especially, it seems, on the evolutionist side) who desire to set rules for the other side to follow that they, themselves, are not willing to do.

Firstly, it seems that the evolutionary cultists (not all evolutionists are cultists, BTW) are amazingly ignorant of ID theory. In its most basic form, ID theory neither confirms nor denies the existance of G-D. Rather, it says that random chance was not a signifcant factor in the creation of the universe. A creation agent was responsible for laying down the rules by which this universe is governed.

To those who would argue that this thesis is not science because it is not falsifiable, I would offer two counter-arguments:

1). There are many things which are pure speculation in science which are not falsifiable today. Much information that we currently have is way beyond our current scope to come up with the merest hypotheses to account for said info (The info from CGRO is an example). This doesn't make it any less science. It merely means that we don't have enough knowledge now.

2). It appears that many cultists are saying that it "isn't science" so as to shut down research into this interesting area of research. If it isn't science, then it is also obvious that science doesn't have province over all truth. And truth is what we need to be concerned with.

While I haven't taken the time to read all of the above articles (because I don't have the time), I have done so on other threads before. I have read articles submitted before as "definitive" answers to creationists, and have been bitterly disappointed in the scholarship and analytical reasoning of the authors. Heck, many of the articles made first-grade mistakes. Most of them made assumptions which were little more than great leaps of faith. But what was especially disappointing was a seeming wilfull misunderstanding of ID. All of the authors that I have read had not the slightest clue and furthermore, didn't want to have the slightest clue either.