This is the problem I have with Intelligent Design as science.
I believe in God and that Jesus Christ is the son and the way to the father, however, any assertions that of a Supreme Being created the universe must backed up with scientific fact. It is not, it is religion not science.
“I believe in God and that Jesus Christ is the son and the way to the father, however, any assertions that of a Supreme Being created the universe must backed up with scientific fact. It is not, it is religion not science.”
Why must it be backed up with science? There are many things that science cannot explain. For example we don’t know why gravity really works. We know it works though. Using your theory if you can’t explain why gravity works then its a religion.
Religion is higher than science.
Has anyone here who says ID is not science read anything written by these people in support of the theory and research plan of ID outside of some pop-sci article in a MSM newspaper? These folks are scientists with credentials, degrees and boxloads of letters after their names. The papers they write cite scientific literature: chapter, verse, and page number. They dream the molecular structure of mitochondria, the phase space of protein folding and the big numbers at the extent of the universe. They are not trailer park young-earthers with fabricated human/dinosaur fossils next to their King James Bibles. I don’t care what you think you learned in your undergrad Biology 101 class or how many Federal Megabucks you have spent cranking out interminable DNA-sequencing boilerplate, the universe remains unexplained and Reality/Truth will still every generation rise up and surprise the lethargic and comfortable academics who have papered their offices with back-patting certificates of achievement in MSS (mainstream science).
Science is not done. All is not discovered. Roger Penrose himself knows there are holes and if the name is unfamililar perhaps you aren’t as book-larned up as you might be.
The same people at FR who disdain Global Warming “science” because those scientist are distorting their science in pursuit of grant money get all warm and fuzzy about Darwinians like Richard Dawkins who are doing the same thing.
You cannot argue both that 1) ID is not science because it isn’t published and 2) that ID should not be published because it is not science.
(Hit and run posting)