Joined: Feb. 2006
> This is why science ALONE is not adequate.
No, is quite adequate in explaining the world around us.
> If 6 billion people thought it was wrong to murder, you would claim this shouldn't "be taken seriously." You make this claim because science is devoid of a value system.
Morality doesn't nearly come into play here.
> I have only said that this belief was an interpretation of empirical evidence.
It isn't. It is a blind belief, nothing more.
> Such a concession is an indictment on science because it will not pursue this "known" empirical evidence with scientific vigor.
There is no known empirical evidence for IDer.
> No, the argument is the schizophrenic nature of science. Is there empirical evidence for an IDer or isn't there?
There is no empirical evidence for an IDer.
> Can science answer all our questions or can't it?
> Is science a static endeavor or will its structure and function evolve?
The methodology will be the same.
> Is science not religion and vice versa or are they fundamentally identical in structure and function and beholden to descent with modification?
Science is not religion.
So, in conclusion, there is nothing schizophrenic in science, but you write as if you were a schizophrenic.