Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...

Like I said, you can't predict anything with evolution, that's why
there are competing theories.

But ID isn't a scientific theory, it's a theology-based attempt to
justify a preconceived conclusion.

...

...


More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is
a very general term. I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility
unless there are other motives.

The scientific method, however, is not a general term at all.

True.


As soon as you introduce an omnipotent external force, you then do not
have a scientific theory, you have a theological-based explanation that
removes the scientific method from consideration.

I don't agree. Considering a designer as a possible source doesn't exclude
any scientific investigation.


See below...


...Many scientists do believe in God.


Yes, but as reason for the philosphical questions, not as the removal of
physical laws...again, see below.


Who said anything about any removal?


If one hypothesizes
this external non-causal force, then there is no possibility of
disproving any hypothesis, thus negating the cosmological principle.

What is the final result of present evolutionary theory is yet to be
seen, but it will not include ID.



Did God tell you that?


No, the application of the definition of scienctific thought. Once you
introduce the supernatural, then, by definition, you no longer have a
natural explanation (DOH!) and therefore, have removed that phenomenon
from the realm of a scientific endeavor.


It should be obvious by some of the quotes and links I posted
that scientific thought doesn't exclude the possibility of a designer.
If you think it does, then it's you who has downgraded science in
your own mind.