[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If I say yes I think ID is science, you say well than any truth is science.

Yes I think ID is science, can it be tested with the traditional scientific method? No-not yet, and I concede maybe never. If the evidence we have is pointing towards some thing should it be excluded for that reason alone. Some would say yes, but that to is changing.

I understand some people will never even consider ID because it can't be explained by naturalistis methods. However I don't think it's fair when I or someone in my position can make (what seems to me anyway) a sound argument only to get the response."Nope. That's a fairy tale."

As to why I think ID is a science. That answer is littered all over this board in my responses, and my posts.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that its wrong to think ID is a fairy tale just because its not science. More fool them if they claim that.

but if it can't be explained by naturalistic methods then it shouldn't be confused with things that are explainable by naturalistic methods. Now I understand your position on that perhaps I can understand something else:

Do you believe its impossible that complexity can occur without a designer or just that no alternative that satisfies you has been given?


chez