If you aren't interested in religion, you will have no problem with ID being required to show som actual research, and being required to put forward some theory about the motives, objectives and limitations of the designer. Something that can be tested.
Another day, more of the same.
If you aren't interested in religion, you will have no problem with ID being required to show som[e] actual research, and being required to put forward some theory about the motives, objectives and limitations of the designer. Something that can be tested.
***I really am not interested in religion. So why did I have to sit through NON-Science classes and listen to professors bloviate about their haps-based "viewpoints" which are philosophies at best, religions at worst? None of it should be presented in any class room EXCEPT for an origins class, where both sides can hammer it out. If one side is lacking in scientific thought, so be it. It will be obvious. I've heard it said on some crevo threads that the creationists don't police their own. Well, the haps folks don't police their own. Otherwise, why are so many college students being subjected to this stuff in NON-SCIENCE classes? And, it's a copout to claim that it's "only a scientific pursuit". Bull cookies. It's obvious to everyone that there are moral, social, sociological, religious, and inductive implications to the haps side, and it is good and right to limit any evil that results from those implications.