10 Categories of Evidence For ID

Bad analogy Jerry.Did you not get the message on the 747 in the junkyard?If you have to be told the same thing too many times people will start to find you boring.

We already do. There are a significant fraction of scientists who have a "philosophy" that includes a creator god. They continue to accept this while they try to determine how their god did his work.As far as "naturalism" is concerned with Darwinism it is simply the same approach taken by all the sciences. We have a question about the natural world (not the supernatural). We may have alternate ideas about the answer to that question. How are we to settle such an idea?How are we to sort out the alternative views in a way that is most likely to arrive somewhere near the most "real" answer. The philosophical approach taken is that of "methodological naturalism" which has nothing to do with "philosophical naturalism". It says that we examine the available evidence and arrive at a consensus view from each side in the debate making their best argument based on that evidence. When one view has won over the majority of those engaged in the debate it becomes the current theory answering that question about the natural world.If you think there is a better way to answer a natural question I would love to hear it. After specifying how it would work in general some examples would be nice.The correct place for this would be in one of the "Is It Science" threads or you might start a new one.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-14-2005 08:02 PM

Inkorrekt, you have to understand that any analogy which doesn't include imperfect replication and selection is meaningless in comparison to evolution.The only issue is leaping the hurdle from non replicators to a somewhat life like replicator (however simple). The rest can follow through evolutionary processes.Once you stop throwing up silly strawmen about modern life coming into existance on it's own then the real issues of abiogenesis can be discussed.You may not think that the interrelationships we see in nature can arise through evolutionary processes but that is for two reasons:
1) you don't want to
2) you have no knowledge about the scienceOther than your incredulity you have offered no nothing to support your assertions. You are wrong.

If you could read RM you'd note that EP was saying that evolution could not produce what we see. While not yet giving evidence that it has actually done it EP has been shown to be wrong in a number of posts here. The fact that neither EP nor you have paid any attention to those posts doesn't make them go away.He is wrong.