To: GourmetDan
Lewinton says all scientists are atheists. They aren’t so he’s wrong. Whether ID is or isn’t science doesn’t depend on that, so it can still be wrong.
113 posted on
09/19/2008 6:18:03 AM PDT by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
The ID proponents say ID doesn’t necessarily have to involve a supernatural creator. You say it does. How is anybody supposed to figure out if it’s science or not if you can’t even agree on what it is?
114 posted on
09/19/2008 6:24:01 AM PDT by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
"Lewinton says all scientists are atheists. They aren’t so he’s wrong. Whether ID is or isn’t science doesn’t depend on that, so it can still be wrong." You previously defined scientists such that anyone who believes in supernatural creation was not a scientist.
Now you say that scientists can believe in a supernatural creator. This would mean that a scientist who believes in ID can be a scientist and ID is science.
Which is it?
115 posted on
09/19/2008 6:29:18 AM PDT by
GourmetDan
(Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson