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.


You can legitimately say that. The 'Iders' do not. The
concomittant proposal for an alternative is paramount to
them. Before 'ID' it was 'creation science'. They are not
in this fight for the science.

Check out their webpages and look into what other issues
they support. Their agenda will be clear.

That does not make 'ID' wrong, but it puts the present
controversy in perspective. Without the Christian Coalition
and its ilk, you would never have heard of ID.

--

FF