"Your ignorance is showing again RussP."
You are absolutely right. I thought I could talk some sense into people who are blind to the obvious reality of intelligent design. I never learn.
Well, maybe this time I will.
I'll just end by repeating my favorite quote from the greatest scientist of all time:
"This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." --Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia
What part of this statement do you not understand?
Some ding-ding replied on an earlier post that this statement is not "scientific" but is "philosophical." That's the kind of baloney that passes for wisdom with you guys. In Newton's day, science was called "natural philosophy." To suggest that, because we now have a slightly different name for science, Newton's statement is not "scientific," is the epitome of ignorance.
The important point is that it is a TRUE statement.
Please read it one hundred times. Maybe a light will go off in your little brain. Then again, maybe not.
The part that implies Newton is infallible.
I take it you think Einstein is wrong, so perhaps mortals can be wrong about things.
To the extent it has proposed specific structures that could not occur by incremental change, it has been refuted.
To the extent that it has invoked information theory, it has been shot down by people like Yockey.
The obvious reality is that there is no evidence for ID. The people you are talking to have a lot of sense and do science for a living. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
Some ding-ding replied on an earlier post that this statement is not "scientific" but is "philosophical." That's the kind of baloney that passes for wisdom with you guys. In Newton's day, science was called "natural philosophy." To suggest that, because we now have a slightly different name for science, Newton's statement is not "scientific," is the epitome of ignorance.
Science has evolved and has been refined since the days of Newton. It also does not change the fact that Newton's statement is philosophical in nature. There is no empirical data, nor any theoretical basis for Newton to have meant it in any other fashion. The rest of his works reference theory to observation. He even derived calculus to make his connections. But with respect to your quote, it was his opinion. And it carries the same weight of truth as any other subjective opinion. It certainly does not rise to the level of absolute truth. Creationists are used to thinking in terms of prophets and their revelations of divine truth. Scientists are not prophets, nor are revealers of truth.
You misunderstand the personalities of science. Certainly Newton is respected and revered, as well as Kelvin whom you quoted in a different post, but science does not canonize its practicioners.