Bruce Barnett wrote:

Tim Daneliuk writes:


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.

*Micro evolution* (within a given species) has been demonstrated.
*Macro evolution* (moving from lower- to higher biocomplexity and
achieving new speciation) has never been demonstrated.

*Neither* predicts anything in any real sense. You are overstating
(by a lot) exactly the state of knowledge as regards to evolution.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/