The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your insight into reality is both vivid and coherent. Utterly mistaken, but at least not a sad attempt to reconcile evolution and the Bible.

Those of us who have a real experience of God know how mistaken you are about His prophets and His operations in the universe. We commend you to put you theory/model of reality on hold and explore the historic Christian one. If you sincerely seek the truth about God, He will cause you to find it.
_________________________________________________________________
Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood[c] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’

So crazy dude thinks Wolfsbane is experiencing God wrong and Wolfsbane thinks crazy dude is experiencing God wrong. And neither can demonstrate to the other that they are correct other than simply saying if you sincerely or honestly seek God you will end up agreeing with me (thus implying that the other is some how being dishonest I guess)

Why don't you both together devise a scientific experience to demonstrate which one of you is on the right track

Oh wait .... :P

wolfsbane

J C wrote: »

I actually like Prof Dawkins, as a human being ... I find his writings to be witty and incisive (up to a point).

He is a very intelligent man ... and I think that he knows in his 'heart of hearts' that there is a God who Intelligently Designed him ... but he is operating under the mis-apprehension that the God who did so is some kind of 'meglomanical monster' (as he has stated in 'The God Delusion') ... when God is actually a loving and just God who loves him as a father ... and wants to Save him.

WELCOME BACK, JC!

Yes, I agree about Dawkins. Seems like another Saul of Tarsus, kicking against the goads. We'll keep praying God turns him into another Paul.

_________________________________________________________________
Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

So crazy dude thinks Wolfsbane is experiencing God wrong and Wolfsbane thinks crazy dude is experiencing God wrong. And neither can demonstrate to the other that they are correct other than simply saying if you sincerely or honestly seek God you will end up agreeing with me (thus implying that the other is some how being dishonest I guess)

Why don't you both together devise a scientific experience to demonstrate which one of you is on the right track

Oh wait .... :P

God does the demonstrating, Wickie. I just do the preaching.
_________________________________________________________________
John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

For clarity, how do the Theistic Evolutionists here feel about this? Do they hold that God intervenes in the evolutionary process, directing it to His ends? That would be ID, right?

If any of you hold to that, are you nuts, and is your science non-existent?

_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,

I can never understand this argument(but more importantly I can't understand why boards decided to quote Wolfy's sig. ). In my view, the best engineer or inventor is the person who invents a contraption that needs the least maintenance. In this case, a God who rather laboriously interferes in every step along the evolution tree is not really an intelligent designer. The God who makes the universe from one simple process that occurs spontaneously without interference (unless He wishes to), now that is pure genius and bears the hallmarks of what I would consider to be Intelligent Design..

indioblack

I've never interpreted anything of Dawkins books that I've read to mean anything other than his thinking that there is no God - by which I understand to mean the conventional Christian God that I was raised to believe in.
It's inside his books, on the back and on the front cover - so I assume that's the message he's trying to get across to his readers.
I do get lost sometimes with the long paragraphs!

wolfsbane

gaynorvader wrote: »

Of course you can't! How could you? You can't know that Hobbits aren't real without investigating other books, you can't know that talking lions aren't real without reading other books. Why should the Bible or the Koran be any different? You can't claim to know something based solely on one viewpoint, that's just silly.

You can if the God of that book confirms it to you, if He teaches you the truth.
___________________________________________________________________
John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

I can never understand this argument(but more importantly I can't understand why boards decided to quote Wolfy's sig. ). In my view, the best engineer or inventor is the person who invents a contraption that needs the least maintenance. In this case, a God who rather laboriously interferes in every step along the evolution tree is not really an intelligent designer. The God who makes the universe from one simple process that occurs spontaneously without interference (unless He wishes to), now that is pure genius and bears the hallmarks of what I would consider to be Intelligent Design..

I don't hold to it myself, and I agree such a process is not an impressive display of intelligence. But the point for the TE folk is that undirected evolution could not be relied on to produce mankind - which was the ultimate object of God's work. You might be happy with whatever undirected evolution might throw up, but God has much more specific and higher standards.

The ultimate display of intelligent design is the creation ex nihilo of Genesis - a fully mature biosphere in a fully mature universe, perfect and without sickness and death.
_________________________________________________________________
Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

wolfsbane

gaynorvader wrote: »

Um...so what you're saying is scientists need to provide proof in order for you to accept evolution, yet Creationists "knowing" something requires no evidence? Why is this? What methods did they use to arrive at their conclusions? What irrefutable proof?

The method of knowing the truth about creation and the irrefutable proof are the same: God revealed it to them.

Note I did not say that was a scientifically derived knowledge. It is therefore not part of their scientific argument for creation. It just gives them the advantage of knowing the ultimate cause and that helps them avoid many false models of how the present day biosphere came to be what it is.

The scientists who present the scientific case against evolution use scientific argument, not theology. But their theology gave them the heads-up for their theories/models of the specifics.

________________________________________________________________
John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, I'm not ignoring them. That is what I mean by educated guessing
There is no guessing. If you just want to leave in the educated bit that is fine, most scientists are educated.

Extrapolating without conclusive proof is educated guessing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
- that one gets some data that might support the theory and then one claims the theory is right.
That is not science, evolutionary biology or any other are of science.

I'm glad we agree it is not science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We maybe differ on our idea of what an educated guess is.
I think we differ on our idea of what science is. You think science is what Creationists do, and then you think we are being hypocritical to complain about Creationists without applying the same criticism to mainstream science. The bit you aren't getting is you are correct that what you think science is is bad but that this isn't what science actually is. It is what Creationism is.

By criticizing "science" as basically nothing more than educated guessing you are simultaneous demonstrating that you don't know what science is and demonstrating all that is wrong with Creationism.

For all the scientific labelling, extrapolating changes in bird's beaks to give change from a self-replicating molecule to the present biosphere is not science. But I would be happy to call it forensic science, or origins science, since it uses some known scientific facts to guess what might have happened in the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Creationism uses the same methodology as you
No it doesn't, as your very post is demonstrating. You think science uses educated guessing because that is what Creationists use and you are assuming science must use that as well because you believe all the Creationist clap trap that they are doing proper science.

Looks the same to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
but the interpretation of the results differs
Interpretation of results is not science. It is educated guessing.

Wow! Now that is worth highlighting and putting on file:
Wicknight: Interpretation of results is not science. It is educated guessing.

We are getting nearer the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What about the non-conformations, and the confirmations Creationism also has?
Non-confirmations demonstrate there is a problem with the model, the model is updated. That is science. You either know if you are accurate or inaccurate. There is no guessing.

I did not say all the elements of origins science was guess-work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm not a scientist, but I am able to detect flawed reasoning.
I don't think it is anything to do with detecting flawed reasoning and everything to do with your need to find things to confirm to you that your religious belief is correct. You appear to have zero interest in science and scientific methodology. The only thing you seem to care about is the position that Creationism is valid because that is based on your pre-conceived idea that what you belief must be true.

I do indeed have priorities, but that does not mean I have no interest in other things. Indeed, all truth is God's truth. So I respect any real attempts to establish truth, scientific or otherwise. And I am able to detect, to some extent, flawed or even insincere efforts to that end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I don't expect any scientist to advance history as scientific proof, no matter how sound that history is.
There is no such thing as scientific proof. You no more prove something in a lab than you prove it out on a river bed looking at fossils.

In my simple understanding, applying heat to a metal in the lab makes it hotter. I would be happy to say that had been proved.

But if you are unconvinced and think the applied heat had nothing to do with the increased heat in the metal, I grant your metaphysical caveat. Maybe we are not discussing this on boards.ie; maybe it is just one of us dreaming.

I realise life must be confusing for the evolutionist.

Again Wolfsbane you appear to have no idea what science is, which makes your claims that Creationists are doing science rather ridiculous.

Your science seems a tad epheremal, I must admit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I expect them to offer scientific arguments if they are claiming the science supports their understanding of history.
Arguments are irrelevant. Science is not educated guess. It is is not saying "Umm, I think this is might be happening here based on this educated guess I just made".

My understanding of scientific argument is that used by the University of California Museum of Paleontology in collaboration with its Advisory Boards. This from its article on The logic of scientific arguments:
Taken together, the expectations generated by a scientific idea and the actual observations relevant to those expectations form what we'll call a scientific argument. This is a bit like an argument in a court case — a logical description of what we think and why we think it. A scientific argument uses evidence to make a case for whether a scientific idea is accurate or inaccurate.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_07

I'll leave it to you to contact them and set them right.

Creationists do not need to put forward arguments they need to put forward results. They need to put forward a ton of models that accurately predict observation. They aren't doing that.

Perhaps not tons - they are not state-run institutions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The tests done by anyone are not in question. It is the assumptions involved and the interpretation of the results that is the issue.
Not it isn't. In science you have to test your models. You don't guess at what the data means.

We agree on that. But the results of the tests and the interpretation of them rest on assumptions. Doctors differ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No one questions, for example, that a particular radioisotope decays at a particular rate today. But assumptions are made that it has always had that rate
No they don't. Scientists don't guess that they decayed at the same rate. The construct models where they do decay at the same rate and then they test these models against observation.

For example if they didn't decay at the same rate then why is the model of unified decay rate accurately predicting the light received from supernovas?

It is nothing to do with interpretation. The model either predicts observation or it doesn't. If the model is wrong then it shouldn't be able to consistently and accurately predict observations like light from supernovas.

We are into time and space issues there, something not resolved to either Creationist or Evolutionary satisfaction. Sticking to earth-bound matters, the models depend on assumptions of rate of decay.

Once again science is not guessing. Whether your model predicts observation is not open to subjective assessment.

I agree. It either does or does not. We then make an inference from that. We interpret the evidence - often with other assumptions.
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

wolfsbane

SleepDoc wrote: »

Creationists don't use scientific evidence or its methodology. They take barely understood fragments and use it to support their ridiculous and cretinous assertions.

"Creation science" is an oxymoron.

That just shows your bigotry. Your adherence to scientism is as delusional as that of any JW who calls at your door. My proof - your contempt for the scientists who challenge the evolutionary model. Those with an honest respect for science are willing to examine the scientific refutations of their own models.
_________________________________________________________________
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Dr Michael Ruse, How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post May 13, 2000

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

Wolfsbane, you have made the same sweeping claims about creation science 'interpretation' over and over. Yet whenever we get into specifics to see if what you say is actually true, you stop participating. You can't have your cake and eat it.

I'm not a scientist, so I rely on scientists to make the arguments for me. I post the links to relevant creationist articles - but that too takes time for me to find what seems most relevant. I'm not here to spoon-feed anyone, just to point them to where they can be fed. But I don't mind giving a little appetiser.

_________________________________________________________________
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Dr Michael Ruse, How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post May 13, 2000

SleepDoc

wolfsbane wrote: »

That just shows your bigotry. Your adherence to scientism is as delusional as that of any JW who calls at your door. My proof - your contempt for the scientists who challenge the evolutionary model. Those with an honest respect for science are willing to examine the scientific refutations of their own models.

There is no scientific refutation of the theory of evolution. If there ever is, I'll be first in the queue to eat my hat.

Why are Jehovah's witnesses any more delusional than say any Christian, Muslim or Jew? Or you?

I'm about as bigoted and contemptuous towards intelligence designers as I am towards kids who believe in Santa Claus. Except that they're kids. They'll grow out of it.

SleepDoc

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not a scientist, so I rely on scientists to make the arguments for me.

The arguments have been made. Evolution has more evidence to support it than virtually any other branch of science.

Intelligent design has no evidence to support it.

J C

JC wrote:

It isn't a conspracy theory ... it is just old fashioned crass religious discrimination dressed up in pseudo-scientific clothes!!!

Ush1 wrote: »

Oh dear, I thought ID was science not religion?

...the 'religious' discrimination that I was referring to is practiced by some adherents of the 'ultra-Materialistic' faith ... and it is directed against people of all other faiths who have the temerity to suggest that the accumulation of selected mistakes is both logically and mathematically certain to never produce any novel functional information!!!

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Well if it's a fair trial they can't complain.

... it could only be only be a fair trial if the laws and rules under which the trial is being conducted are fair and equitable to both sides of the 'origins' issue ... and as they are not ... a fair trial is impossible!!!

Scopes lost his case ... not becuse of the merits or otherwise of Evolution ... but simply because Tennessee Law, at the time, stated that Evolution couldn't be taught in school.

Similarly today, any ID Proponent or Creation Scientist would lose their case, not because of the merits or otherwise of ID/Creation ... but simply because the current law states that only Evolution can be taught in school and regarded as 'science'.!!!!

J C

Ush1 wrote: »

Listen;

I'm not sure if you understand what evolution is but you clearly have no idea what natural selection is. You clearly have no idea what intelligent design is and you clearly have no clue what Dawkins was getting at.

Could you please give me your definition of these concepts then ... and we can take it from there!!!

J C

Lantus wrote: »

The bible is about moral and spiritual aspects of people first and foremost. It is not a book about the natural world or science. It has no useful advice on indoor plumbing, car design, medical technology or anyhting else we rely on in the modern world.

... the Bible is much more than just a book about morality and spirituality ... for example, Genesis 1-3 is an account of the Creation and the Fall of Mankind ... and it is therefore a historical narrative!!!
The moral authority of the Bible rests on its claim to be the true Word of God ... and this, in turn, relies on the veracity of all of its Books (including Genesis).

Lantus wrote: »

If you take it as a spiritual guide to living a certain way then you'll be fine, once you start taking the rough guide to creation in genesis which was no doubt put in to give context and meaning to the rest of the book and use it as some sort of literal written guide to how we all came into being it gets really messy. I dont recall Jesus spending any amount of significant time debating this topic yet it seems to be all that bible has to offer these days for those passionate about making it canon.

Jesus didn't need to spend time debating Creation, because the Creation Account in Genesis was accepted by all Orthodox Jews of the time!!!

Lantus wrote: »

It's no doubt important for christians to feel they have a real sense of certainty about their religion but attacking science wont help. there will be many other amazing scientific advances and discoveries in the years and hundred and even thousands of years to come. Some of these may be unwelcome to a great many religous groups.

... the only people trying to suppress scientific endeavour currently are the Materialists and their fellow travellers.
Creation Scientists and ID Proponents are fully committed to supporting the moral use of science to improve the standard of living, cure disease and generally ameliorate the effects of The Fall.

Lantus wrote: »

But it shouldn't require this conflict, both can live in harmony if they respect each other and as the bible unlike science wont change in the next 1000 years christians should accept what they have and learn to live and adapt to the changing world around them, NOT the other way around.

It is the Materialists who are having difficulty in accepting change ... the change that the latest research into ID is producing.

It is also the Materialists who are in denial of the fact that our knowledge of Molecular Biology now means that Darwinian Evolution has become scientifically untenable!!!!

Ush1

J C wrote: »

...the 'religious' discrimination that I was referring to is practiced by some adherents of the 'ultra-Materialistic' faith ... and it is directed against people of all other faiths who have the temerity to suggest that the accumulation of selected mistakes is both logically and mathematically certain to never produce any novel functional information!!!

No no no.

Re-read what you said. You are claiming people covering up the "science" that ID claims to be is religious discrimination. Of course science is materialistic!

Again, do you have any clue what ID is???

Ush1

J C wrote: »

Could you please give me your definition of these concepts ... and we can take it from there!!!

What concepts? You need to be be specific.

I have already told you what ID is and not by my definitions, by the group that supports it.

Saying evolution by natural selection is compatible with design is an oxymoron in every sense. If you introduce intelligence at any stage of the selection process, what ever you get, call it artificial selection or design, it is self evidently not NATURAL selection.

J C

SleepDoc wrote: »

There is no scientific refutation of the theory of evolution. If there ever is, I'll be first in the queue to eat my hat.

... I would recommend that Sir start with the Bowler Hat ... it is in season at the moment!!!:)

J C

SleepDoc wrote: »

The arguments have been made. Evolution has more evidence to support it than virtually any other branch of science.

... plenty of wind and bluster ... but no substantive evidence!!!

... show me da monay!!!!

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

... I would recommend that Sir start with the Bowler Hat ... it is in season at the moment!!!:)

Trust a creationist to think that something culturally dispensed with a hundred years ago is "in season".

J C

Ush1 wrote: »

No no no.

Re-read what you said. You are claiming people covering up the "science" that ID claims to be is religious discrimination. Of course science is materialistic!

Again, do you have any clue what ID is???

Science isn't confined to the purely materialistic ... it also researches and evaluates virtual phenomena such a knowledge, design and the appliance of intelligence.
... it only when the quality and the scale of these phenomena (as observed in living organisms) starts to indicate that there was the applicance of an infinite intelligence, that the Materialists 'shut up shop' ... and refuse to 'go there' ... while loudly proclaiming scientific 'excommunication' (or worse) against anybody that is impetuous enough to continue to research these issues ... after they have been warned not to do so by the Materialistic 'High Priesthood'!!!

Lantus

J C wrote: »

... the Bible is much more than just a book about morality and spirituality ... for example, Genesis 1-3 is an account of the Creation and the Fall of Mankind ... and it is therefore a historical narrative!!!
The moral authority of the Bible rests on its claim to be the true Word of God ... and this, in turn, relies on the veracity of all of its Books (including Genesis).

But the wording is so open to interpretation it could mean anything. The genesis chapter is certainly not considered history.

Jesus didn't need to spend time debating Creation, because the Creation Account in Genesis was accepted by all Orthodox Jews of the time!!!

In a time before scienece it's not surprising but today we can have a much greater understanding of the world. The much simpler people of that time simply couldn't imagine a round world circling the sun, even fire was still pretty special in those days.

... the only people trying to suppress scientific endeavour currently are the Materialists and their fellow travellers.
Creation Scientists and ID Proponents are fully committed to supporting the moral use of science to improve the standard of living, cure disease and generally ameliorate the effects of The Fall.

I'm not familiar with the group called materialists, and CS and ID groups do support technology, but only on the basis it does not contradict, interfere or threaten anything they hold to be a matter of faith. So nice shiny merc's are generally ok, as is indoor plumbing. But when we get to things like cern and things like theory's they start giving the evil stare.

Ultimatley any development in society and science should be made disspassionatley by objective and reasoned testing and experimentation. You can never start from the opinion that something is right or wrong based on faith and then try to dissprove or prove the opposite to justify that faith.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Trust a creationist to think that something culturally dispensed with a hundred years ago is "in season".

...it all depends where you live ... whether the Bowler Hat has been culturally dispensed with ... or not!!!!!

... anyway, could I suggest a well worn baseball cap with french fries ... if Sir would prefer to eat a more ordinary and everyday HAT!!!!:)

Ush1

J C wrote: »

Science isn't confined to the purely materialistic ... it also researches and evaluates virtual phenomena such a knowledge, design and the appliance of intelligence.
... it only when the quality and the scale of these phenomena (as observed in living organisms) starts to indicate that there was the applicance of an infinite intelligence, that the Materialists 'shut up shop' ... and refuse to 'go there' ... while loudly proclaiming scientific 'excommunication' (or worse) against anybody that is impetuous enough to continue to research these issues ... after they have been warned not to do so by the Materialistic 'High Priesthood'!!!

So you either believe ID is science or religion?

It's okay to admit it mate, it's blatently obvious you're talking through your hoop and don't have a clue about the subject.

J C

Lantus wrote: »

But the wording is so open to interpretation it could mean anything. The genesis chapter is certainly not considered history.

... OK lets start with the first verse "In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth" ... or how about "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." ... sounds like pretty unambiguous stuff to me!!!

Lantus wrote: »

In a time before scienece it's not surprising but today we can have a much greater understanding of the world. The much simpler people of that time simply couldn't imagine a round world circling the sun, even fire was still pretty special in those days.

... so you think that the guys who built the pyramids were a 'simple people'??
... even though we would be 'hard put' to do so today, even with out modern machinery and building systems!!
... please stop patronising a nation that would appear to be, if anything, superior to modern society in their knowledge and understanding!!!

Lantus wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the group called materialists, and CS and ID groups do support technology, but only on the basis it does not contradict, interfere or threaten anything they hold to be a matter of faith. So nice shiny merc's are generally ok, as is indoor plumbing. But when we get to things like cern and things like theory's they start giving the evil stare.

... CERN is also OK !!!

Lantus wrote: »

Ultimatley any development in society and science should be made disspassionatley by objective and reasoned testing and experimentation. You can never start from the opinion that something is right or wrong based on faith and then try to dissprove or prove the opposite to justify that faith.

... I only wish that the Materialistic Evolutionists shared your objectivity!!!!

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Trust a creationist to think that something culturally dispensed with a hundred years ago is "in season".

Bowler hats are very much in season in parts of Belfast each Summer.

J C

Ush1 wrote: »

So you either believe ID is science or religion?

It's okay to admit it mate, it's blatently obvious you're talking through your hoop and don't have a clue about the subject.

ID is very much within the realm of observable science ...
... it's the unfounded belief in the 'hidden powers' of pondslime to lift itself up by its own 'bootstraps' to become man ... using nothing but time and selected mistakes ... that is firmly within the realm of (unfounded) faith!!!!

Ush1

J C wrote: »

ID is very much within the realm of observable science ...
... it's the unfounded belief in the 'hidden powers' of pondslime to lift itself up by its own 'bootstraps' to become man ... using nothing but time and selcted mistakes ... that is firmly within the realm of (unfounded) faith!!!!

So why did you call the suppression of ID research religious discrimination if it is science and not religion?