I find Calvinism insidious because of its doctrine of double predestination and the denial of the universal salvific will of God. But let's not get off topic. We can come back to this later.
It also looks like somehow you are relying on something your average scientist would say is unacceptable: that since we can't 'disprove' Eve was outright created by a miracle, the possibility it happened is acceptable ... on a rational basis. By this logic, I.D. is fully acceptable, scientifically, yes?
Sure, so long as it remains a theological point and it is not claimed to be a scientific theory.
You are leaving room for 'miracles'. Within scientific rationalism,
I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific rationalism."
I don't see this as a rule - the possibility of miracles is expressly excluded.
Not at all. It is true that when a scientist seeks to explain a phenomenon, he tries to find natural explanations. However, this in no way implies that must believe miracles never happen. Indeed, many scientists are Christians, which means that they must believe that miracles occur sometimes.
Now we are getting closer. We both agree with this statement. The question is this: why, exactly, is he biased to find 'natural' explanations? I would argue that within the grounds that train scientists, one is taught that they MUST evaluate evidence, and MUST do so exclusive to any other forms of inquiry.
Your average scientist would, gently, point out that evidence for miracles does not exist, has never existed, and all scientific investigations of miracles have produced inconclusive evidence at best, and proof of fraud the vast majority of the time. Miracles can't be disproven, yes. But evidence for them doesn't exist at all - given the premise of how one defines the scientific method is agreed upon, and I speak in that general sense.
Unless I miss my mark, two types of science exist: that kind exploring stuff that is happening now. And forensic science ... stuff that happened then, but the cause is no longer present. I.D. is forensic science ... they don't credit God. I'm comfortable with I.D., b/c I'm full aware that the Universe is a big place. And I.D. doesn't EXCLUDE God either.
But, I think I can now see where we are going, for I had said:
"By this logic, I.D. is fully acceptable, scientifically, yes?"
And your reply:
Sure, so long as it remains a theological point and it is not claimed to be a scientific theory.
This connects to a thread I posted earlier:
Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - It would ‘become the death of science’ .... "...if it became part of science" .... to finish Provine's comment.
When I posted this thread, what I was really looking at was how weak the MSM sounded regarding the position of the scientists. Now, I'm actually relooking at the 'death' of science ... and what does that imply happens to the 'scientists'? I had thought the death comment was ridiculous hyperbole. But now I am not so sure.
It is one of the few times within the fight the MSM sounds alot like a religion I practice - born again Christianity. There, death as a word is used a lot. But being born again is spoken of too...; but the scientists don't see that part. That is why many of the sidebars of the major news outlets have 'Science', 'Sports', 'News', 'Entertainment' ... but not 'Religion'.
Faith and Reason were decoupled, curiosity, when roughly? Mid 1800's? Your comment about what a scientific idea tangibly is is based upon the recent idea that the decoupling was VALID.
You have fully accepted the arguments about what science actually should consist of, and what it should exclude. How did this happen to you exactly? (and for my own frame of reference, I am asking myself what exactly happened that I overrode my own decoupling, and recoupled them? That happened in July 2001 - for if on a rational basis, all that happened was that I suffered a mental collapse into irrationality, well then some clever scientists should have written about what 'causes' that too...; and I'm open to looking at that).
Anyway, I think we're getting into positivism and neo-positivism now, btw; but maybe not.
In short, it seems to me I.D. simply cannot be called 'science', as 'science' is currently defined, according to you.
So, the ID/Evo fight seems to me to be a political fight over who has sovereignty over what the word 'science' means, in the end.
It is going to be interesting, very interesting to see what the courts say about that sovereignty. But I can guess ... they'll apply the same rationale they applied in RvWade.
This means, in the court rooms at least, scientists have little to fear about I.D. being taught as 'science' in the public classrooms of the USA. These 11 'parents' are going to win this fight. Roberts himself said it: his 'faith' is decoupled from his reason, so the good Democratic senators have nothing to fear. And look at the votes he got! (I think I'm in the minority in my concern about him ... for now.)