ID and the bias inherent in human nature

Just as a quick point to think about in the discussion...I think there is a fundamental difference between Christian theology and science with respect to the checks and balances within their respective communities.Every Christian is basically working from the Bible. It's considered the word of God and is therefore true.What "outsiders", if you will, don't always realize is that science is an extremely competitive community. There are checks and balances to theories. Everyone wants the new hot theory that will change everything, contrary to your belief.For an example, just look at String Theory. Supported by many scientists that have always been held in very high regard and continue to be. There are no anti-Christian conspiracies involved with it, it comes from some of the leading minds in science. We're not refusing to see God or what have you, etc. etc. {insert all the reasons ID supposedly hasn't been accepted}, it's just that science comes with a specific set of guidelines to insure that it is indeed science.This message has been edited by dsv, Wednesday, April 27, 2005 08:48 PM

I have read a lot of ID material. Tell me, who must I read in order to have the clear understanding of ID that you seem to possess?WK mentioned Behe and Dembski, are you saying even they are biased to what you would call "orthodox scientific method"?Where is this enlightening ID literature that we are missing?

What on earth are you talking about? You keep bringing up Galileo, if he were alive today we could test his astronomical observations. What's your point?How does this further our apparently pedestrian knowledge of Intelligent Design. If you think we don't understand completely, numerous people have asked you to explain your definition. I don't think linking a video counts (maybe if it was Quicktime. I AM biased against RealVideo and not afraid to admit it!)