| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
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.