Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| Renata wrote:
|
|| While the origin of the universe may matter to science, ID as the
|| explanation fails to follow the scientific method and thus, fails
|| to be in the realm science. (simply put)
|
| Go back and read the rest of the thread. ID fails only to follow
| the scope of science *as currently defined*. ID is trying to
| get traction (in part) by arguing that the first propositions
| of science are in incorrect (i.e. philosophical materialism).

This is like saying: "If I had some meatballs I could have spaghetti
and meatballs - if I had some spaghetti."

If you let me re-write the constitution I could be king - if I could
write. :-)

If you want to play "science", then you have to play by "science"
rules as currently defined.

If you aren't playing by "science" rules, you're playing some other
game - and if you take the rules for "science" and make arbitrary
changes, then you've created a new game which may resemble "science"
(or not) but that new game isn't "science".


If you take this position (which you are free to do), you are essentially
saying the the epistemology of science is settled for all time and can not/
ought not to ever be revisited. I sort of have a problem with that ...


It is the epistemology that differentiates science from
anything else.

But supposing we put that issue aside for the moment and
consider fitting ID into that epistemology, removing whatever
other elements conflict with it. Let us at least recognize
that ID is not a new idea, it is very old idea, one that
predates science itself. Let us also recall that prior to
the abandonement of ID, no progress in science could be
attributed to a reliance on that particular element, but
instead, was often made in controvention of it.

So, a reluctance on the part of scientists to backslide by
reincorporating ID into the epistemology of science is
rather understandable, don't you think?

--

FF