[Phys-L] Re: compromise on ID ... or not

[JMGreen at SISNA.COM (Jim Green)]

> ID is not science, it is not religion either.

> Some things in this world are just wrong.  Some thinges are merely
> wrong, in the sense of incorrect, and others are WRONG, in the sense
> of evil and wicked.  ID is wrong.  Touting ID is just a systematic
> effort to bear false witness, and it is WRONG.

Well, John, I think that the rhetoric is getting boring.  No one has
explained -- at least to me -- who "they" are  or which ID teachings are
"evil."   Who is the mystic secret organization -- "the ID guys"?  And just
what are the teachings are you moaning about?  All we hear is the
chant.  "ID is not science."  For my education would someone please explain
this -- _coherently_?  I am beginning to feel that no one here knows --
certainly not the author of the above.  There is just too much flailing and
posturing for a "scientific" discussion.

Larry Smith asked the -- as yet unanswered satisfactorily -- question  What
is the operative distinction  between string theory and ID?  The most I
have heard here is that we have the faith that eventually string theory
will be tested and proven correct.  Sounds like religion to me.

See you in church this beautiful Sunday morning -- well, if you go, I will
go -- maybe.

Jim


Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen