Joined: Nov. 2007
|Annyday: I'm sorry I neglected to respond to your points. If you want to make a list of questions you'd like me to answer, I'll do my best.|
"Non-material causes" is a meaningless buzzword. Anything we can observe- any "cause"- is considered "material" enough to be a part of science. Human agency, quantum mechanics, and the like are included in this definition. So what does ID actually want to change about the philosophy of science?
That's the only real question. The other thing is that biologists are slaves to empirical results. Even most theorists can still wax eloquent for ages on the minutia of their most-studied organism's traits and behaviors. It's actually kind of terrifying. So, it's really not empiricism vs rationalism.
|I'd rather disentagle the scientific questions from the religious questions so that the real question becomes, can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories? I think the jury is still out on that.|
... and, when the jury's still out on whether a large group of people can produce any evidence for their case after twenty years and some millions of dollars, it bodes very poorly.
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow