WATCH YOUR FOLLOW UPS Intelligent Design

this has nothing to do with archaeology.


"cnctut" wrote in message
ups.com...
T Wake wrote:
(some snipped for length)

I don't for one second wish to imply that science implies there is "no"
intelligent designer - simply that "ID" and creationism are not science.

I don't believe in my examples I've ever suggested ID was science--what
I've tried to point out by example is that certain aspects of current
"science" thought has no more claim to science than ID.

This may change in years to come (although I doubt that). Redefining
"science" to suit the needs of ID is a sign of its weakness. ID has
inherent
flaws in that it uses circular logic as its basis.

To that I say "show me the math." The mathematical probability that man
grew from pond scum is magnitudes smaller than an electron shadow.
Statistically, it could happen--but not as likely as my example with
the monkeys and typewriters.

As stated elsewhere, requiring science to support your faith it a flawed
proposal.

I don't require science to support my faith--but I find it refreshing
when it does. ;-)

Scientific "proofs" are often overthrown and re-developed.

Yes, and many have been taught as "science."

I am sure most religious zealots would not appreciate this. Is the end
goal to
redefine science into a religious state and then stifle its development?
(Does this sound familiar?)

I have no end goal--other than to seek the truth. How about this
twist--assume ID is true and attempt to prove that it isn't.

Best Wishes

Tut