Aaron, we are now seeing why the debate is so unsatisfying from both sides. --- "Lambert, Aaron" <Aaron.Lambert@Williams.com>
Why are supporters of ID automatically "unscientific"? It seems to me that you are applying your own narrow
definition of "science" to them just as they are using a narrow view of "religious" as their basis to label you.
Any theory, idea, postulate, philosophy, etc., than invokes deity is unscientific. It is religion. I didn't invent that definition and it is not hypocrisy to point it out.
I do not believe that religion is inherently unscientific. That is a large can of worms, I realize, and probably not worth discussing.
No, that is exactly the center of the whole debate. Religion IS inherently unscientific. Religion is above science, apart from it. Science can never approach religion and remain science. Science is concerned with the physical aspects of the natural world, religion is the human interpretation of the spiritual world. The two exist on incompatible planes, unrelated, apart. Science is a tool to understand mechanics, religion is a tool to understand the soul. You can't baptize someone with a cyclotron, you can't measure specific heat with a BoM or cyclotron. Each must stay on it's own side of the line. There can be no mixing. Creationists and ID proponents want the two to mix, and that is just not possible from the scientists point of view. There will never be accord unless one faction is utterly beaten and defeated into obscurity, and I don't want to live in such a world, speaking for myself. I like 'em both, but each in their own space. Does this make sense, Aaron? There are fundamental differences that the ID people just won't accept. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com