Scott Lurndal wrote:

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.

But the materialist suppositions (philosophically) don't get exclusive
traction until Darwin.


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".

Snakeoil. The IDers are attacking the current claim that the observable
Universe can be fully understood in purely mechanical-materialist terms.


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.

Citations please. You are once again arguing from the bad practice
of a few Rev. Billybob Fartbottoms and trying to generalize onto the larger
discipline in a way I do not believe to be valid (but I am willing to
be shown otherwise.)


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.

No one - not me or any IDer I have read - claims that "science is wrong."
The assertion here is that the philosophy of science currently en vogue by
necessity will lead to incomplete knowledge about the observable universe
because the first propositions of that philosophy are unnecessarily restrictive.


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,

They do so every time they argue that First Cause is not important in the
discussion of how the universe came to be. "There may be a First Cause or
not, but we don't care (because our tools are inadequate to apprehend such
a thing), so we dismiss it out of hand as 'not scientific'. We thus operate
as if the whole business started magically and only concern ourselves with
the consquences."

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.

Yes there is - you espouse a belief system without evidence or proof
of its sufficiency (thought there is plenty of proof for its
effectiveness). You then denigrate any position that dares to question
your orthodoxy. This a a religious mode of thinking.


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