"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marlow" writes:

So what? In what way does that discredit ID?

As I said - it's a theory, and not really science, because it can't be
tested. ID can be caused by God, by a superior alien race, or by my
invisible Uncle Harry.

You can't disprove any of them.


I've spoken with your invisible Uncle Harry - I can disprove that one...


"Bounds" sounds like it says evolution is wrong in how it predicts
things. We wait for evidence of this.

No - that's not how I meant it. I simply meant that ID can embrace
evolution bounded by the belief in an original creation.


I don't disagree with some of the things ID suggests. As I said -
nanotubes is a wonderful example.

But ID is not really science. It's metaphysics and philosophy, because
it's not a model of behavior. It a model for lack of evidence.

No contest. I hope you did not understand me to be arguing that it was
science.


I see nothing wrong with metaphysics. Scientists do this all the time.
But the test of time is how accurately does the model predict events.

And frankly I can't see ID doing this, because it doesn't predict.

But that's because ID satisfies itself with explaining wouldn't you agree?
No need for prediction under this guidline. As long as it embraces the
moving forward findings of science then there's really no big contention
there. I don't believe it has to embrace all of the theories of science,
but it certainly has to embrace some of them and of course, the findings.


--

-Mike-