|"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Joined: Feb. 2005
|Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 04 2007,18:41)|
|Re "Intelligent design is an unverified scientific hypothesis."|
And that is still not technically correct. To qualify as scientific, it has to actually explain something about the subject matter, i.e., there have to be some observable details that are expected if the hypothesis is correct (or at least a reasonable approximation), but not expected if it's wrong.
Exactly. Their, uh, "explanation" consists solely of "our explanation is better than yours." But if I ask them just what the #### their "explanation" *IS*, all I get is various versions of (1) "Jesus saves!!!" or (2) "I don't have to tell you".
IDers quite literally have nothing scientific to offer. Not surprising, though, since ID is a political strategy for theocracy, that has nothing whatever to do with "science".
Editor, Red and Black Publishers