A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

i don't think oec is that contensious at all. the bible says that all nature demonstrates god's handiwork. therefore, these individuals don't feel the need to ignore what nature so clearly screams. evolution may or may not come to play in this viewpoint. ( i think theistic evolution is probably a subfield of this group.) but evolution is not demonstrable on a grand scale. you can find plenty of evidence for it, but our temporal handicap makes it impossible to be completely sure. (note: this is no reason to ignore the study.) gravity wells and dark matter could just as easily be the product of some small mathematical assumption being patently false.at least mathematicians admit that they could be totally off. neither evos nor creos will do that.

no. i was replying to what i replied to.

Now in this you are making a number of claims. Lets just look at the first, "I don't think oec is that contentious at all." You offer the "bible says..." This is not however the basis for any claim of empirical science. Appeal to the authority of the Bible can form the basis for a religious belief, but not a scientific one.
...
If you will notice, in attempting to argue in defense of intelligent design -- or at least old earth creationism, you appealed not to any evidence per se, but to the authority of the Bible. As such, your response actually illustrates the problem, the tension, between the objectivity required by science and the faith required by religion, and thus the very point that this piece was making which in the very last sentence of this paragraph was stated thusly, "The standards of science and standards of religion must necessarily come into conflict to the extent that God belongs to both domains."

​

Is your belief in God something which is falsifiable by reference to the evidence, or is your belief in God a matter of faith which you hold to independently of the evidence?

​

It appears that your belief in God is a matter of faith -- as illustrated by your appeal to the authority of the Bible. I do not see anything wrong with this per se -- indeed, if your belief in God were something falsifiable by reference to the evidence, I would consider this to be perverse. However, the belief in God becomes a problem when this faith attempts to present itself as empirical science, as the so-called "theory of intelligent design" is doing.*sigh*
no, not at all.
do you seriously see the word bible and shut down? you're no better than they are. I was using the text to explain a position regardless of science (well, actually of openness to science). i wasn't proposing anything empirical at all.the standards of science and the standards of religion (as you so glamourously term them) needn't come into conflict. they've nothing to do with each other.my post was mainly a response to mixing your terminology. if you're going to talk about id, talk about id, but know that oec is an entirely different bag. don't lump. it's uncivilized.