ID and the bias inherent in human nature

I think most evolutionary biologists, like myself, are quite dispassionate about religion. It really doesn't enter into the equation of how we go about testing what is a good explanation of life processes and what isn't. Many are actually Christians that view evolution as God's mechanism of creation.I would contend it is the other way round. The only thing binding creationists together IS their religion. So what if its wrong? They don't have a scientific method, or any analogous mechanism to collect or evaluate evidence. They only have 'faith'. Isn't there a chance they are wrong ?

As long as we have communication and education there is hope for all. Thankfully I can say no to both of these. I reserve no ‘disk space’ for Hollywood or anyone's perceptions of it. I have trained in the military without active duty, but enough to be familiar with the operant psychology of military command. But I’m not sure why this ‘insider’ vs ‘outsider’ perspective contrast is so significant to you. Shouldn't we all strive for a balanced perspective of the landscape regardless of what side of a window we are on? Objective information is freely available everywhere today.
Unfortunately, so is a lot of crap. Education is required to tell the difference - more so now than ever before in history. Unfortunately, this is very true indeed. But when Joe Public starts to ask questions about what he imagines to be a unified, monolithic entity of science, understanding nothing about science or its methods, he sees nothing but confusion and then grasps reflexively at more simple explanations. Why do you feel so compelled to bind us together ?
I thought we ‘Darwinists’ were always in disagreement with one another ?

So I was bored at work. As a professional in public service I can rationally categorize this as an outreach activity, an educational service to my community.
Besides, I can type fastBut to be honest, it was the activism of creo’s and ID’ists in my own state that made me feel I had to find a forum to debate the veracity of evolutionary biology as a functional theory without equal in the biological sciences. I felt it my responsibility, as someone who uses inferences from evolutionary biology every day to help protect agriculture in this country. You can blame Google that I just ended up here. Well no. I would never call it religion, although I can understand how it might sound like that to you. I have complete faith in the scientific method as the most reliable means for effectively describing nature, but I have no ‘complete’ faith in any specific product of it (as, for example, some Christians have complete faith in the Bible as a product of Christianity), only reserved consideration and, possibly, measured acceptance. But I do believe strongly that good, reliable application of the scientific method in biology has lessons for us all as humans who, presumably, seek to stabilize our planet biologically for purposes of our own continued existence. After all, applied biology in one form or another feeds us, clothes us. heals us and will one day, (God willing ), make our biosphere sustainable. I could have some fun with this sentence, but I will exercise self restraint because I think I know what you are saying. But ‘metaphysical is out there with ‘philosophical’. It is really separate from objective science. On the other hand, these physical theories of small scale phenomena you refer to are not directly observable to the human eye, thus they require mere intellectual mortals (myself included here) who cannot visualize the math to have faith in the ‘methodology’ of science, rather than these specific results themselves. There are a lot of incredibly brilliant physicists and mathematicians in the world, and if any of these models of reality didn’t hold water, if they were flawed in any serious way, then one of them would make a career for him/herself showing exactly why. And the best of the best would have a shot at proving him right or wrong. That is why we can trust science more than any other source of knowledge. These models are not yet perfect, but we can have ‘faith’ that they provide our 'best approximation of reality' to date, and one that can only improve as long as the enterprise of science is allowed to continue.This message has been edited by EZscience (for typos), 05-17-2005 09:22 PMThis message has been edited by EZscience, 05-17-2005 09:23 PM

In theory, there is no limit, except that we have no evidence, direct or theoretically extrapolated, to suggest that anything smaller than quarks are required to make up all subatomic particles.Again, what I think you really mean by 'metaphysical' is 'intangible' because it's comething we can't see or touch. It requires a 'leap of faith' for those unable to understand the evidence and the math.Metaphysical: (Random House Websters Unabridged) While quantum cromodynamics might seem metaphsyical, it is based on a theory consistent with a large body of observations, so it might be abstract, but it is certainly not concerned with causality, truth, ultimate grounds, or anything like that.No matter how small you go (or how large), science can never approach the status of a religion. Its models do not rest on faith but on evidence. Its theories do not seek to dictate morality or human concepts of right and wrong. It is not governed by any immutable dogma, nor is it immune to refutation by novel findings. It is subject to change and refinement through experimentation and verification and no ultimate purpose is ever attached to its constructs or its inferences. The validity of its theories is only measured by their accuracy in accounting for observations.

Behind the scenes !?
I thought we were doing it quite effectively right here, out in the open !