Steve Peterson wrote:

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Tim...

There's a lack of sufficiency to prove _anything_ at this point.
There're good arguments both ways. My life experience leads me to want
to believe in ID; but I still don't have enough information even begin
to construct a proof.

At the same time, all of my life experience leads me to want to
believe that if something happens, it happens because something caused
it to happen. Yet, I find myself unable to prove that _nothing_
happens without prerequisite cause.

These concepts may or may not conflict - I simply don't have any way
of knowing. It seems reasonable to me to conclude there is truth in
both; but it also seems reasonable to conclude that neither is
complete - and that even the sum/union is incomplete.

Further, our reason and proofs don't appear to _define_ reality - and
in fact, have failed frequently in the past to even accurately
_describe_ reality.

There are so many questions we haven't answered - and so many more
that we haven't even asked. As always, we're using what's within our
limited horizons to draw universal conclusions. Seems to me that our
reach is awfully short and our grasp exceedingly weak.

--
Morris



Please note, these are philosophical questions, not scientific questions.
The scientific approach is to break them down to small, distinct hypotheses
that can be addressed and which produce a distinct answer. It may take a
scientific breakthrough to settle some questions. Consider that at one
time, there was a question about a running horse - did it always have to
have at least one foot on the ground. It was "obvious" that a horse is too
heavy to lift all four feet, but high speed photography was invented and
settled the question. So come on ID, make the hypotheses and do the
experiments. Until the observations are made, ID will continue to fail to
be scientific. If philosophy classes want to include it, no problem. They
can argue about irreducible complexity and provability as long as they want.

Steve



This is an argument by misdirection at best. The only reason these are
not "scientific questions" at the moment is because of the current *philosophical*
assumptions of science. The very sufficiency of "the scientific approach" is
potentially on trial and your (and so many others') answer is:

It's not science as I understand it, I cannot comprehend any
other possible way of doing science, so I refuse to even
acknowledge the possibility I could be wrong or that my
way of doing things is inadequate.

You have effectively substituted your *beliefs* about the methods
of science for real intellectual curiosity and objectivity - a truly
religious practice if I ever saw one.

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