quote:
This is completely false.
In my opinion, it is probably true. Rarely will there be something that is completely one way or another.
quote:
ID and Creationism, for whatever reasons, does provide a reason to look at evolution much more closely.
How is this possible? A scientist setting up an experiment might look at hundreds of papers from the literature. He/She must absolutely show a clear stepwise connection between what is shown already, and the result expected. How in this Universe would it be possible to start from mysticism and go to step B?
quote:
These ideas that are in contrast to evolution should be considered positive by all of the science community because it forces evolutionist to answer questions and dig deeper.
This statement postulates a result based on no data. Scientists have a hard time designing experiments that use magical incantations. Instead, Ideas are built upon earlier ideas that have some data behind them. There is then this long string of facts or observations from a past point to what the present scientist is trying to accomplish in the present. This is a lot how farmers work in the 21st century. They use soil analysis, weather forecasts, crop rotation, and the latest seeds. Both scientists and farmers need to know exactly what they did and why it worked, so they can do it again. There is not much room for anything mystical.
quote:
ID and Creationist scientists have posed numerous questions that NEED to be answered even if they're for all the wrong reasons as you think.
This is stated, obviously from a single personal perspective. In my opinion, the best remedy is to attend a conference of scientists and try to get a feel for the big picture there. Scientists already ask themselves rock-hard questions. This process is called peer review. Their questions are asked from the basis of what is known, because if a scientist is proposing by his/her experiment to add to the body of literature, their peers will make absolutely clear that the new data is correct. That way, the next experiments can depend upon it. Religion and politics don't work this way. Wish they did. "NEED" is your opinion. What makes you the arbiter of what NEEDS to be answered? Perhaps people who believe in a magical past and an unknowable present just don't get it. Scientists work from known points to develop new known points. Just because they have not addressed your points yet is not a bad thing. Like the farmer, they work on what is practical.
quote:
I wonder if evolutionary scientist would have even cared to search for explanations of irreducible complexity and the likes if it weren't for opposition.
Maybe this is news, but to a scientist, you or the creationists are not the opposition. Because a scientist cannot write a paper that uses magic, any proposal that includes mystical steps, is irrelevant.
quote:
Everyone has their ideas on what the world is about and religious philosophies, even if its a lack thereof, so the diversity of these beliefs in the science community is the greatest asset one could ask for.
This statement may sound reasonable on the surface, but think about it. You are actually proposing that scientists must think and work like religious people who are required to believe in magic. What comes across to me is that you are unfamiliar with both the scientific method and its rigor. Diversity of beliefs in the scientific community is a reality, and it derives from highly studied people trying to find the best pattern for the incomplete suite of facts on the table. Unlike religion, new facts will be added by scientists working on the matter over time, so the pattern will evolve into a theory. The theory will become a component of other patterns to be argued, and of future theories.
Multiple approaches/postulates/speculation are part of the initial part of the scientific process, but even these are based upon observations and facts.
Why the need for magic?
™ Version 4.2