"Bruce Barnett"
Tim Daneliuk

ID is *not* baed just on "someone's opinions" anymore than any other
knowledge system is. It is rooted in a claim that today's science
fails to adequately account for all observed data and proposes
and alternative. *Neither* system is provable, which is why I believe
there should be a thorough and rigorous discussion on the matter not
the copout "it's not science so we don't have to" argument.


There is a big HUGE difference between ID and evolution.
But you ignored my earlier point.

There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.
We CAN use evolution to predict results.


You can't predict anything with evolution. Some species change,
some don't. And there's no test for the creation of life, yet it
exists. There's no test for the creation of the universe and all
it's laws, yet it exists.



One is testable, and one is not.


Not true.


Evolution has been tested millions of times, and each time works.


In what way?


We can NEVER test ID as a theory.
ID can NEVER be proved or disproved.

Simple put, one is a hypothesis that can be tested, and be the basis
of science, and the other is philosophy, metaphsics and religion.


If evolution was tested and proven in some concrete way it wouldn't
be a hypothesis. If one believes that creation happened of its' own accord,
which is the natural consequence of rejecting any answer other than secular,
then you are also engaging in philosophy, metaphysics and religion. That's
why it's important to give school children an unbiased education.