Replies

Devotees of scientism have always sought to rule out challenges to their faith in strictly materialist metaphysics.

Sorry, you don't get to change the definition of science. Science can & always has & always will address the natural world only, and has a myriad of facts on its side to support evolutionary theory. Good for the NABT for reiterating the importance of the theory.

Y'all have been asking for years that ID be given time in the classroom, and now you got it. As they say, be careful what you wish for...

Science, by it's methodology, is restricted to explanations "from nature". I have no problem with that, and in fact recognize that such constraints are the glory of that methodology. Where the partisan tunnel-visioned users of scientific work product slide into scientism is in illicitly bootlegging the scientific enterprise's contributions into arguments about meta-physical issues, where it has no special authority.

Evolutionary theory, due to the above noted illicit applications, is laden with bogus arguments, phony "examples", and volumes of "just so" stories that rival the mythologies of the Middle East and Greece. The Intelligent Design alternative could be a means of cleansing the Augean stables of biology from its materialist Darwinist blinders, but Darwinism's obtuse devotees will have none of it. So be it.

As a practitioner and supporter of home-based education, I don't much care what NABT, the Kansas bureaucrats, or other denizens of the tax-supported state indoctrination centers are doing with these issues, other than to hope that their various self-destructive endeavors speed the growth of more economic and productive means of inducting the next generation into the human race.

At a conservative estimate, say 15 Sites per enzyme must be fixed to be filled by particular amino acids for proper biological function. . .

Why do you think I am responsible for the above argument?

You used it in your post to Coyoteman; I assumed this meant you were using the statement to make a point. If not, I stand corrected, but I'm left wondering why you included it in your collection of quotes.

Science, by it's methodology, is restricted to explanations "from nature". I have no problem with that, and in fact recognize that such constraints are the glory of that methodology.

We agree on this.

Evolutionary theory, due to the above noted illicit applications, is laden with bogus arguments, phony "examples", and volumes of "just so" stories that rival the mythologies of the Middle East and Greece.

Evolution has a lot of open-ended hypotheses (most complex science paradigms do - a guess is the first step towards new theory). It also has a tremendous number of well-proven theories under its belt. No "just so" story is universally accepted by the scientific community without verification.

The Intelligent Design alternative could be a means of cleansing the Augean stables of biology from its materialist Darwinist blinders, but Darwinism's obtuse devotees will have none of it. So be it.

So, what factual science information, verified by testing and/or data collection, would comprise a classroom lesson in intelligent design? I'm honestly puzzled here - you say that naturalism is a strength of the scientific method then castigate it for its materialistic methodology? What exactly is more materialistic about biological evolution than climatology, plate tectonics, particle theory or stellar evolution? I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse, here, I am honestly a little confounded by your perspective.

"Where the partisan tunnel-visioned users of scientific work product slide into scientism is in illicitly bootlegging the scientific enterprise's contributions into arguments about meta-physical issues, where it has no special authority. "

I hope you have better luck with that argument than I've had. The only response I got to it was to be labeled a creationist.