[Fester Chugabrew]

There are many scientific disciplines that may be used to support the philosophy of history known as "the theory of evolution." As a whole however, the theory of evolution is not science. It isn't even useful as a so-called science. If one wants usefulness and progress out of science, then he should take up intelligent design, without which the universe would be neither useful nor intelligible.

[Coyoteman]

There are many scientific disciplines that may be used to support the philosophy of history known as "the theory of evolution." As a whole however, the theory of evolution is not science. It isn't even useful as a so-called science. If one wants usefulness and progress out of science, then he should take up intelligent design, without which the universe would be neither useful nor intelligible.

Young earth creationist lecturing us on science ===> Placemarker <===

[Da_Shrimp]

As a whole however, the theory of evolution is not science. It isn't even useful as a so-called science

How so? The theory is supported by the evidence.

nayway, as I said, I'm quite willing to entertain the idea of a Divine input, but that doesn't mean that it's the Hebrew God as the source of that input. Could be Brahmah, or Isis for that matter. It worries me that ID can be a mask for Biblical fundmentalism.

[thomaswest]

You espouse a well-known logical fallacy. Namely, that the validity of an idea is to be determined by its utility or usefulness.

One variation of this flawed thinking is the argument that the validity of a proposition is to be judged by its effect on society. Interestingly, this was a favorite argument of communist theoreticians.