Fletis,

You have continued to argue that science should expand to include
creationism, oops, I mean intelligent design. I think you need to review
the meaning of the word "science" which you can look at he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science. Again, I cite Wikipedia only because
it is easy to give a link, and it isn't very long and uses simple words.
Here is one paragraph on the goals of science:

" Despite popular impressions of science, it is not the goal of science to
answer all questions. The goal of the physical sciences is to answer only
those that pertain to physical reality. Also, science cannot possibly
address all possible questions, so the choice of which questions to answer
becomes important. Science does not and can not produce absolute and
unquestionable truth. Rather, physical science often tests hypotheses about
some aspect of the physical world, and when necessary revises or replaces it
in light of new observations or data. "

You repeatedly demand the inclusion of pseudoscience, but it doesn't fit.

Steve

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
...

... I've even said what the approach
should be to be fair to science and the students. You seem to be
evading
reading it. No one suggested that science stop so your assertion is
quite false.


No, you've replied in generalities about there being "obvious" design

That isn't quite right either. I said many scientists see evidence
for design.

but neglected to answer the questions of how this is to be demonstrated
(other than by faith and assertion)

I've answered that as well. I even posted links as to what led them
to their conclusions. In the case of the Cambrian Explosion the
evidence doesn't fit the long running assertions of natural outcome.
You want to embrace those assertions because it appeals to you but
ignore the fossil record. That's a demonstration that requires no faith
and no assertion. If you can demonstrate that the Cambrian Explosion
records supports Darwinian Evolution, I'd like to see it. I'm not on
trial
here, the ball is in your court. If you keep saying I'm not answering
we will know who is really ducking the issue.

You keep invoking the Cambrian Explosion as an example of some unnatural
event. However, there is no reason that evolution could not, or did not,
develop a wide variety of organisms, making up more classes than we now have
after winnowing through competition and selective reproductive success.

I'm not so much interested in defending "Darwinian evolution" because
that implies a severe simplification of what we now know. I've never
contended we know everything at the present time, only that to presume
there isn't a natural explanation is to remove the exploration from the
realm of science.

and how/whether this
intervention/design is/was a one-time or continuing process

... It isn't important...

"It isn't important" isn't much of an answer...

and also how
that can be demonstrated or reconciled w/ natural processes.

Again, your question misses the point. The point isn't how the unnatural
can be reconciled with the natural but how the natural can be the cause
for unnatural events.

But that is the point. If it is unnatural, then how can one possibly
have any explanation other than "because"? Is that science in your
opinion?