the reason for science not answering questions about a hypothetical designer is that there is no evidence of the designer that science can study.
I know that. However, I.D. has given me some possible insights into the intentions of our creator. I'm not sure if my creator wants me to tell the world about some of these things. I do believe in science because it has its uses. I don't trust the people who disseminate science to the public.
I.D. doesn't necessarily start out with the answers. At least I haven't looked at it only from this perspective. It looks at the evidence such as biochemistry and the Cambrian explosion and the fine-tuned nature of our solar system and the rest of the universe.
We can debate the epistemological obligations of science but I can't see how science can explain everything when it MUST dismiss any and all supernatural possibilities. Neo-Darwinism is the epitemy of that sort of thought process.
I strongly suggest that you use start to utilize your best judgement because there are people out there who want you to hear what they want you to hear. I never said that we shouldn't get our information from them. I believe that we should also get our information from sources other than them.
Perhaps you can elaborate on what you see as a problem with modern science?
It would be quite a process if you wished to explain everything you encounter with science. Try explaining the people you need to deal with with science. Science doesn't explain everything in terms as though it is the truth. It gives the best explanation that fits the evidence until another theory comes along.
Consider the theory that the universe is a hologram and that it contains holograms within it of various sizes. So far, as strange as this theory may seem I have not encountered any evidence that refutes it. Maybe I have not dug deep enough. But there seems to be legitimate scientific evidence to support it. There also seems to be pseudo-scientific evidence that supports it. Where do you draw the line if there is scientific evidence that supports it and none that proves it wrong?
This is what I mean when I stated that some other posters are employing the use of equivocal statements.
Of course, there is psychology but there are several different theories based on psychology. People are complex and to stand their analyzing them might prove to be availing, would you really want to explain everyone you have to deal with this way?
Do you at least appreciate the rigorous method used to arrive at conclusions in science? Are you, in your opinion, satisfied with the methods used by science?
Yes, science does have some good uses. It keeps people honest but I think people can be deluded by its use. For example, there are concepts that you cant test such as the anthropic principle.
I had a chance to think about your post overnight. Let's state a version of this argument in one sentence.
"If something cannot be tested by the scientific method, it cannot be true."
How does someone test this statement with the scientific method?
Or let's take a pseudo-scientific statement such as this one:
"Pseudo-science credits the supernatural when natural causes are unable to adequately explain the phenomenon."
How do you disprove that statement with the scientific method?
Steven Jay Gould recognized that science had its boundaries. He is an evolutionist and I think he is intelligent. (I don't know if he is still with us.) You can read about his concept of NOMA in wikepedia.
For ID proponents the preferred method for determining the best explanation is how well the explanation fits their theology.
Why does it have to be this way? Why can't we use science to filter some of evidence out?[/i]
This is made clear in the Wedge Document where the authors state, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Why does it have to be Christian? Why can't it be represented by Muslim or Hindu traditions?
Now, given that the long list of things that supernatural forces were responsible for has, as many have pointed out to you, been reduced throughout time, why does this now newly introduced supernatural force for biological lifes origin considered any better than any other assertion about supernatural forces that has been proven wrong?
In other words, the trend has been finding evidence that renders suspected supernatural activity as naturalistic explanations. Is this what you are saying? Trends are one thing but trends don't necessarily disprove the existence of something.
And I think you are right that I am part of the irony. I wouldn't mind meeting with you at least once at City Place. I am not like this in real life. I don't push my agendas on people who don't want to hear about them. Of course I do it here because you have a choice if you wish to read it or not or engage me.