Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| I would suggest that Science build on a materialist-mechanical
| foundation is 'blind in one eye' to *any* First Cause and ought to
| throw up its hands now.

I'd like to suggest an alternative course: that you address the
process of discovery that can lead to more complete sightedness.

"Throwing the baby out with the bath water" doesn't appear to be a
productive strategy.

I don't have an alternative strategy. The IDers think they do - they
might be right or wrong. But wouldn't you agree that suggesting
defects in an existing theory does not require the concomittant
proposal for an alternative for the suggestion to be valid?
That is, I can (legitimately) say "X is possibly incorrect"
without necessarily having a replacement for X.


Yeah, but it seems that it might be wiser to have some evidence other
than faith to offer the rest of the world. Shouting, "we're here,
that's why," doesn't exactly present a solid scientific foundation, and
so far, that's all the ID people are doing. It might be that 30 million
Southern Baptists can't be wrong, but it might also be that they are.