Creationism/ID as Science

Hi DS, This kind of analogy actually demonstrates quite well one of the main reasons why I think ID is nowhere near scientific in it's approach to evidence. If you had sufficient motivation you could go around collecting and analysing evidence and trying to find out how a glass of water did get to be on my desk: That's what science does at a crude level - it asks questions and keeps on asking questions. ID proponents find something that they think is designed and then stop. No need to define the designer, no need to enquire about it's motives, no need to provide evidence that a possible designer actually exists. Goddidit! No more questions.So (he says torturously extending the analogy - sorry) if:

1. We can't show that Bert exists
2. I never asked for this glass of water
3. There is quite a lot of evidence of an automatic cold water delivery system

Then I see no reason to bring Bert into the Theory of Glass(ToG). This message has been edited by Ooook!, 19-08-2005 10:11 AM

Hello again,Sorry for the late reply, procrastination and all that. I would say that 'someone did it' is not an unscientific statement but it isn't specifically scientific either. As I said before: it should always be followed up with some (answerable) questions. 'How?' is a good place to start, maybe accompanied by 'Who?' or even 'Why are you so sure?'.If someone is unwilling and/or unable to present satisfactory answers to this kind of question or at least suggest tests for them then they are being unscientific. Whether people are discussing 'designers', 'Bert the glass bringer', or the magical universal energy 'Oooomph' they have to keep chasing answers to remain within the realms of science.It is the method that is scientific, not the statements made: a concept that IDers and other creation 'scientists' seem to have trouble grasping. It is enough for them to point at the Bacterial Flagellum, use some scientific sounding equations and jargon to declare there must have been a creator and then leave it there. I can see no evidence to suggest that this will ever change; it's a faith-based position, not a science-led one.In addition to this there have been numerous instances of tests that have been failed many times over, especially for a young earth. Universal common descent and the age of the earth are the examples that spring to mind immediately. The evidence for evolution won't go away. In order for creationism to become a science, in my opinion, it has to scientifically answer the biggest question of all "Why would God make it look otherwise?".