Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution / Take 2

I think we need a part 2 of the thread: Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/EvolutionIn the former thread: http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory Percy summed his position this way:Percy: You suprised me Percy. I sense some genuine understanding of the issues on your part. I apologize for lumping you in with other members and Admins. I am still far too reactionary myself to be an honored participant. I try...What I wanted to remind you of, is that the only reason they are technically 'not scientists' is because they are not confining themselves to the box of 'methodological naturalism'. So it is true that ID is not science. That is what the court is looking at.The argument and the fight is really over what the appropriate definition of science is or should be...Evolution is also not testable, it remains to be 'theo' or theory (a contemplation of the divine order or logos).There is another tool that can be used to test an ideas power and accuracy; The test of philsophical coherence. In this sense, ID arguments are utterly devestating to evolutionary theory.The assumption of materialsm (that only natural explanations are valid) has actually been a totally rediculous assumption since the discovery of the quantum realm. I mean here we are doing all of this postulating on the material world, when matter itself is ultimately non-material.The naturalists among us simply must come to terms with the reality of the natural world that is 'other than material.' It is not unnatural, it is only supernatural. And it is not supernatural ultimately, it is only supernatural to us at the present time. For heavens sake, even gravity is still very much a mysterious and supernatural force. That does not mean that it is irrational or unnatural. I think reality is extraordinarily rational and sensible. Far more rational and sensible than we. We're the one's in the dark, not reality.Have I said anything worthy of discussion in a new thread onthe same issues?ps. I'd sure like to be re-instated and have access to origins. I think I can actually communicate with Doddy. And I'll make extra effort to hold my tendancy toward reactionary zeal. That's a tough subject for a guy with only 10th grade biology under his belt. I really want to take the focus off of preaching, because I am learni9ng so much by participating in spite of our disagreements. Debate spawns learning...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

There are several potentially interesting topics in this OP. But it would be a huge muddle if it started with these all in one thread. Here are some that I see you could choose from:
1) The definition of science. You might include the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism in that one. (Something you don't seem to have a grasp on).
2)Intelligent Design as evidence for creation.
You seem to have missed the point that while it is taken as being the best evidence given it was also shot full of holes. A focus on it might be generally useful.
3)You need to continue discussing what a theory is. It isn't encouraging that you still don't get what you've been told more than once.
Any or all of those three would make a good single topic for a thread. We don't do threads that are "miscellaneous" that is just a forum for those threads that we can't think where else to put.As for reinstatement in the Origins thread you don't show any sign that you will be able to contribute and that you won't just clutter it up with 10th grade biology while others of us want to learn something about current chemical research in abiogenesis. What do you think you need to be back there for exactly?