Tim Daneliuk writes:


You need to actually go read some IDers because you keep erecting strawmen
as you cling to your position. They are attacking the method of *knowledge*

They are attacking a method of acquiring and validating knowledge that has been used since
the time of the greek philosphers over two thousand years ago.

used by contemporary science. A system that has not been around all that long
(essentially from Darwin forward) and which has some fairly large gaping holes in

First off, the scientific method predates darwin by a couple of thousand years.

The ID folks are attacking darwinism, using "Argument from ignorance" to
claim purported shortcomings in the scientific method. The "absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence".

And in fact, you are wrong. The ID'ers all want their particular deity
acknowleged as the Intelligent Designer. Including Behe, Dembski and
Stephen C. Meyer.

You are using the same arguments that the Cold Fusion and other snake oil
proponents use to justify their beliefs - "science is wrong" "The Scientific
Method is bogus" "You didn't touch your bellybutton first" and so forth.

its assumption (the "something from nothing" premise being one of the biggest ones).

You have erected another strawman. No scientist has ever proposed
"Something from nothing". Whether it be the big bang or evolution,
nothing is not a precursor.

You tone and intensity is religious here not inquisitive...

I think you are taking it personally. There was nothing religious
in any sense about the paragraph to which you responded.

scott