Sigh. I've said it before, and I will say it again. Science was invented
by scientists, and involves a method. You can pop a theory out if nothing
(miraculous genesis) if you want. You can call it ID. For it to become
science involves work, a lot of work if you want to overthrow hundreds of
years of effort and knowledge. You have to identify scientific problems
that can't be solved or explained by extant theory, and show that your new
theory does provide a better explanation, and that the extant theory
(broadly, Science for Tim, or more aptly evolution by natural selection)
can't be improved to provide an equal or better explanation. It isn't
necessary for one prophet (oops, I mean ID scientist) to do the whole job,
but if you want to play the game of science, you have to play by the rules.
If you substitute some other set of rules, IT ISN'T SCIENCE.

The real issue isn't about ID "science." Anyone can propose hypotheses and
experiments to test them. They can submit their results for publication; if
it is a good hypothesis and test, with results that show the proposed
result, they will get published (Not always in your first choice journal.
BTDT). So there is a path for ID "science" to follow.

The real issue is that IDers want to shortcut the process and have ID taught
in school science curricula, as equally valid as evolution. That is what I
oppose and will fight against.

Steve #564

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
news
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Morris Dovey wrote:

George (in ) said:

| How is the only question a scientist should answer _ as a
| scientist_, by the way. S/he should not question faith any more
| than someone of faith should question science.

I was with you until I reached that last sentence. I think a scientist
should question *everything* and that *everyone* should question
science.


That depends on what you mean by "question science". If you mean
continually test the present hypotheses and prediction of current
science, certainly--and good science does precisely that. If you mean
question science in the sense of the IDers and Creationists that

IDers and Creationists are rather different camps of thought, though
the adherents of each share some common views. Lumping them together
casually smacks of guilt-by-associaton. For instance, Creationism
almost always means people who insist in a literal 6x24hr creation
cycle. IDers as a group do not - in fact, one IDer I read called
that reading of Genesis a "wooden literal interpretation".


"Science" is fundamentally flawed in asserting the existence of natural

Strawman. Neither IDers nor Creationist assert that "Science is
fundamentally
flawed ....". IDers, especially, assert that *some of the assumptions*
that Science are based on are *inadequate*. No one questions the utility
value of Science. (At least no one relevant to this discussion.)

processes from the very beginning, then no.



No mature thinker is ever unwilling to question their first propositons
(i.e. The unprovable axioms upon which their system of thought is built.)
The stubborn refusal of the Science Establishment to even be willing
to consider the sufficiency of it's long-held premises is silly.
No one is suggesting we throw out Science, the Scientific Method, or
burn Scientists at the stake. What *is* suggested is that there may
be a more valid model in which to contextualize/harmonize the findings
of empirical Science.


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