Re: Name the I. D. Theory, or shut up - WIN PRIZEPosted By Glenn Gordon |
Mike,
I don't disagree with you on the illegitimacy of ID as a scientific theory.
Many scientists believe in a creator. Does that mean that such personal beliefs have to be legitimized through scientific theory?
Any "theory" which sets out to prove the existence of God is not a scientific theory at all. That's not the job of science. Everyone here knows that, don't they?
With that in mind, I understand why one might be troubled by the fact that ID is often touted as scientific in nature.
I also appreciate that such discussion is taking place in the "Religion & Philosophy" section as it should be and not in a scientific forum.
-Glenn
I don't disagree with you on the illegitimacy of ID as a scientific theory.
Many scientists believe in a creator. Does that mean that such personal beliefs have to be legitimized through scientific theory?
Any "theory" which sets out to prove the existence of God is not a scientific theory at all. That's not the job of science. Everyone here knows that, don't they?
With that in mind, I understand why one might be troubled by the fact that ID is often touted as scientific in nature.
I also appreciate that such discussion is taking place in the "Religion & Philosophy" section as it should be and not in a scientific forum.
-Glenn