Tim Daneliuk writes:

Science, in its current form, is unable to address the question of
"First Cause" - that is, Science is mute on the question of how the
Universe came into being in the first place. It is mute on the question
precisely because Science (in its current form) has chosen to take a
purely mechanical/materialist/reductionist view of the Universe. It
explains the observed Universe with the *assumption* that it has no
overarching purpose or design and, of necessity, can only be understood
at a detailed mechanical level.


I wouldn't say that. You claim Science makes the assumption there is
no purpose. You might as well claim that all scientists are atheists.
Both assumptions are wrong.

Science purposely AVOIDS making assumptions. Instead, it looks for
evidence of truth. Those that make assumptions can distort the
interpretation of facts. Look at all of the experiments that "prove"
ESP exists.

Now - YOU tell us, why on earth this is so doggone offensive to the
high priests of Science defending their educational turf?

No no no no!
It's not offensive to BELIEVE these things.

It's offensive to those who UNDERSTAND the science to have people use
pseudo-science to prove things which there is no proof.

I'm trying to think of an analogy. You are a computer scientist, and
the best analogy I have is a medical doctor:

Suppose someone published "scientific proof" that voodoo and
witchcraft was able to cure diseases, and suggested that "witch
doctors" should be consulted before medical doctors. Suppose they also
claimed that "faith healing" make things worse.

Medical doctors would be offended by this distortion of facts.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.