Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...


"Evidence" that is acceptable to today's science establishment may
well be impossible.


Then it isn't science--and that's the problem why it isn't considered
such.



...The nature of the debate is philosophical and the
IDers, in part, argue that today's rules of evidence may be wrong.


AHA!!! One of (if not the only) few ID'ers who actually let the cat out
of the bag! So change your tactics and introduce it as philosophy, not
science and you'll stand a chance.

I am *not* an IDer - at least as you understand the term. I am an
interested member of the peanut gallery.



AHA! Thus "the slip"...at least you don't need to be reprogrammed.

You seem to have made a pretty good representation that your leanings
tend to support bringing the ID "argument" into the classroom...

I have and I do. But it's not because I accept the claims of ID
prima facia. It's because I think ID's challenge to the philosophy
of science and its first propositions of knowlege are worth
showing to students. Durable science will not be threatened by doing so.

I think your other responses however, indicate you have a pretty poor
understanding of "how science works" that leads to what is, imo, an
incorrect conclusion about that status of ID as an alternative in the
science curriculum.

As social phenomenon and philosophy it has some place, but not in
science other than an "obtw, there are those who think this is a crock
but they're misguided".