(August 3, 2009 at 11:06 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Actually, it doesn't. ID isn't science, so it does not argue "scientifically." Oh sure, they pretend to, but they make a number of flaws in their reasoning that basically moves ID lock, stock, and barrel into religious territory.
Perhaps you could list for us—those who are reading this thread—which Intelligent Design authors you have read and which publications of theirs. (And given how easy it is to just grab titles off the internet, your claims could be tested for correspondence to content material.) And then I could follow that up with which ones I have read, including the publications I have on my bookshelf. That way the members who are reading this thread can decide for themselves whose statements possess significance... rather than having you pontifically dictate for everyone.
Anyone can have an opinion. But the issue is how informed an opinion is and what it's informed by (e.g., reading about ID from anti-ID material has as much value as reading about evolution from anti-evolution material). I gather my information from source material. Do you? We shall see.
(P.S. Do you consider forensics a science?)
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
