Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

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.

Where I have a problem is in the requirement beyond the initial design
for continual or periodic intervention--that, imo, removes the
discussion from the realm of science.

I have addressed this at some length elsewhere in this thread. If, you
are simply postulating that there was an initial Being "Before Anything"
that set up a set of physical laws and started the wheels in motion and
is now watching, that's one thing. That model is not my understanding
of the whole of ID, however.