T Wake wrote:
(some snipped for length)
> I don't for one second wish to imply that science implies there is "no"
> intelligent designer - simply that "ID" and creationism are not science.
I don't believe in my examples I've ever suggested ID was science--what
I've tried to point out by example is that certain aspects of current
"science" thought has no more claim to science than ID.
> This may change in years to come (although I doubt that). Redefining
> "science" to suit the needs of ID is a sign of its weakness. ID has inherent
> flaws in that it uses circular logic as its basis.
To that I say "show me the math." The mathematical probability that man
grew from pond scum is magnitudes smaller than an electron shadow.
Statistically, it could happen--but not as likely as my example with
the monkeys and typewriters.
> As stated elsewhere, requiring science to support your faith it a flawed
I don't require science to support my faith--but I find it refreshing
when it does. ;-)
>Scientific "proofs" are often overthrown and re-developed.
Yes, and many have been taught as "science."
> I am sure most religious zealots would not appreciate this. Is the end goal
> redefine science into a religious state and then stifle its development?
> (Does this sound familiar?)
I have no end goal--other than to seek the truth. How about this
twist--assume ID is true and attempt to prove that it isn't.