[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders

[ajm at CSUPOMONA.EDU (John Mallinckrodt)]

Hugh writes:

> ... the problem is that the ID folks have not put forth any evidence
> *for* their hypothesis, only purported evidence *against* evolution,
> all of which
> has so far been shown to be bogus.

As I mentioned before, ID proponents will point to the awesome
complexity of nature as evidence *for* ID and I strongly suspect that
the vast majority of those who haven't made up their minds will find
that a compelling argument.  So again I would implore us to stick to
the simple facts.

It doesn't matter if there is or isn't evidence for ID.  "Evidence
for" is a very tricky and innately subjective thing.

It doesn't even matter if ID is or isn't "true."  Science isn't about
"truth"; it has no way of establishing "truth."

ID is not science BECAUSE it is invulnerable to evidence.