It did it unjustly so but don't forget that the court system is fickle. For example, Roe vs. Wade.
How was it unjust? Because you disagree with it?
ID had the opportunity to present its case in a court of law, and most IDists choose to stay away. I think that that is because they knew that under oath they would have to reveal the truth. Only Behe (as far as I recall) had the courage to take the stand, and he ended up admitting that his preferred definition of science would include astrology.
TE and ID have differences otherwise there would not be a dichotomy between the two. That does not mean that they are opposed to each other.
Nevertheless most prominent IDists are opposed to TE.
Wrong, there is no E without the T. You're either a Theistic Evolutionists or you're not.
That is nonsense. I am an evolutionist, but not a theistic evolutionist.
My point, however, is that people who accept TE can do real science by focusing on the E and keeping the T out of their scientific claims.
Anyone who is paying attention to the subject knows full well that there is evidence for ID. While those who reject the evidence have their own agenda.
And yet time and time again IDists fail to say what that is!
Think how much more compelling your argument would be here if you cited a single example!
Here, I will show you how. For evolution, we have genetics, the vitamin C pseudogene, the nested hierarchy, the fossil record. See, evolution has actual evidence, so I can say what it is. ID does not, so....
ID is the enemy of naturalism because naturalism has produced no predictions while ID has made many that were a surprise to the entire scientific community.
ID is the enemy of naturalism because it was set up that way by religious fundamentalists. I already proved this by quoting the Wedge document. I am surprised you even want to dispute this.
Again, this was established in a court of law.
ID is the enemy of naturalism because naturalism has produced no predictions while ID has made many that were a surprise to the entire scientific community.
All predictions in science are founded on naturalism, from relativity to thermodynamics, because science uses methodological naturalism. To say otherwise is frankly preposterous.
Science only deals with what is measurable everything else falls outside of its scope. Design is a measurable quantity even without the knowledge of the source.
So show us how. Better still, I will start a thread, so you can show the world.
Another poster made the claim that design can be measured. Science only deals with what is measurable everything else falls outside of its scope. Design is a measurable quantity even without the knowledge of the source. I would be interested to hear how that works in practice. I mean what is...
forums.carm.org
You have other fields that deal with what can not be measured such as philosophy and that is why I can embrace the Abrahamic God while accepting ID as the better alternative to naturalism.
Again, in the OP you said "
They do not claim to know the identity of this designing agent ...." and in the very next paragraph you claimed to know the identity of the designer!
Think about it for a minute, Cisco. You made a claim in one paragraph, and refuted it in the next. Your attempts to squirm and misdirect do not change that one jot.
Wrong on so many levels. I have serious doubts as to whether you know what ID is publishing and saying. Or is it all hearsay.
So point me to a paper by a prominent IDist that sets out a design scenario in sufficient detail that we can determine the order of magnitude for the timeframe.
Right, because archaeology and forensic science are science, and ID is something else entirely.