Creationism/ID as Science

Creationism is not science. It implies intent and purpose.
Science does not deal with intent or meaning ...only the physical details. Nothing of science has ever implied intent or purpose.
The minute it does it is no longer science but becomes religion.
Science must be kept free from Religion because religion creates meaning and purpose and morals and guilt all sorts of other messy things that the tool we call science is not capable of dealing with.
However....it is human to be devisive. And I see many using science as thier religion. If one uses science as a way to argue the lack of a divine being or to deny an afterlife one has slid right into religion.
Science is not a belief system. It is a way to examine and understand the "physical" environment. It is best suited to do this.
Science will never define the spiritual. To ask it to is folly. That is simply not its nature.
When both sides of the issue realize this there will no longer be an issue.This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-20-2006 01:25 AMThis message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-20-2006 10:33 AM

I posted twice by accident...see belowThis message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-20-2006 02:18 PM

We have to realize that these social sciences must treat an individual as an object to be examined and cannot and do not acknowledge the existance of self. "Self" in this context is only a concept.
If we accept that we are merely a concept then we do not exist. It is inherantly dehumanizing.
We must inherantly have faith in our existance or we cease to exist.
For me or anyone else to comunicate in any meaningful human way we must have faith and believe our own and each others existance. That is a fundimental truth. As such to be human is to have faith. This does not in any way imply religion. It is more basic. Religion attempts to bring meaning to this fundimental truth. Something science cannot ever do.
I appolgise for how far from the tree this appears to have fallen.
I do believe it is behind the underlying reason for the topic.Oh yes....and again...creationism is not science

Yes...I understand. This is why science will continually mistake apples for oranges.

I am not sure exactly what your implication is by that comment.
Since it was a response to me, am I to take it that you assume I take that view? If so I see nothing I have said to lead you to think so. I see the above in a metaphorical sense perhaps but not in a literal.
Or
Was it a knee-jerk reaction using a singled out response that you may have your own underlying issue with. You could have chosen one of many others.
I will respect you, if you respect me. Unthinking comments of that nature serve no good purpose on these forums. IMHO