Questions about God and Science

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Why should the example of Mr. Monton be more persuasive than yourself (or the principle proponents of ID)? Why should I give a shit if someone thinks that ID is valid science? In the same vein, upon what metrics do you imagine ID to be valid science (he offered no elaboration), just a short quip about how "some arguments (which ones...he doesn't care to elaborate here either) make him "less certain" about his atheism. Do you think you might be able to fill in those blanks for me?

(reading through his blogs on the subject offer no insight, though they do provide compelling evidence that this guy is a goddamned moron. He thinks ID is science despite having no evidence supporting it, but simultaneously thinks that Quantum Mechanics is bullshit despite there being evidence to support it........just as one glaring example)

1. Only because he's a pro philosopher with a PHd and a professor of philosophy at University of Colorado. He's also more sympathetic to atheism than I am.

2. You may not care, but I do. It was my original question. Why is intelligent design automatically off the table as a possibility in science? What are the reasons intelligent design should never be taken seriously as science? My sense is that people are too emotionally invested in how they want the answers to be to feel comfortable with having a serious debate about ID. Otherwise, why not seriously hash the thing out? And if it has been hashed out - where? By who? Who's had that conversation?

3. I also listened to a lengthy interview where he offered more than in his blog. I won't try to speak for him. I suppose if you read his book or spent a little more time reading what he's got to say you could hear his reasons for thinking that ID is worthwhile as science.