So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)

Since your post is rather long, I will approach just one small part of it here. In the quote above, you seem to have completely misunderstood Dawkins. Dawkins does not appeal to panspermia when "ordinary science fails". He allows that it is a possible naturalistic explanation for the appearance of life on earth via an intelligent designer, but he is very explicit that it is most definitely "ordinary science" and involves no supernatural entities. It simply moves the question of how and where life began to a different place and time. A good analogy might be our creation of life in the laboratory. If this happens, it will be intelligent design. But it will say nothing about our genesis and evolution. Postulating that our life, our planet, or our universe might just be someone else's petri dish just moves methodological naturalism to a different arena. It says nothing about the existence of something that is "super" - whatever you think that means.Nothing in your quote above does anything to advance an explanation of what supernatural is, how it would interface with the natural, or why it is required by any current observation.Suggesting that Dawkins thinks the idea of panspermia actually is required to explain abiogenesis (you might want to remain clear on that distinction if your time here is to be fruitful) is a simple misrepresentation of his position. I am curious where you got your idea that he does. Please tell me it wasn't "Expelled".Capt.

Finally, a succinct and accurate summation of how ID science works. Thanks.Capt.PS: - I think the second part is a Dembski quote, isn't it?Edited by Capt Stormfield, : Add PS