> Much of our astronomical knowledge is deductive rather than inductive. You can perform rigorous observations despite being forever separated in time and space from the subject of your observations, and from those observations build good science.
>

In the case of astronomy, though, you are observing what is, not what was (not accounting for the time it takes the stars' light to reach us).

> Any area of research that claims to be a discipline of science but deals at its very core with a non-falsifiable hypothesis (in ID's case this is the designer) is not really a science. ID is not a science, no matter how much it pretends to be one.
>
> That said, you can attack the theory of evolution on purely scientific grounds. I have no interest in having that discussion, but suffice it to say ID is absolutely not about promoting a second scientific theory in place of evolution. It is about promoting a philosophical and theological position, which is outside the boundaries of science.
>

I agree. My point was that evolution is given far more credibility by the scientific community than it has earned. Everything being created from nothing by God is bunk, but everything being created from nothing by the Big Bang could perhaps be workable.

There will always be those who try to scientifically prove both evolution and intelligent design. I don't believe either will ever be successful. I do believe that creationism is more compatible with science than most people think and that evolution is not as compatible as popular opinion holds. As the evidence stands, what to accept as true is largely up to individual interpretation.

> I have no problem with those who believe in creationism on the basis of their faith. I don't understand it, but that's fine.

Likewise, I have nothing against people who disbelieve intelligent design.

>I do have an issue with those who would disguise faith as science in a very deliberate effort to undermine the teaching of science in public schools, which is precisely what the ID advocates (and here I distinguish between believers and those who claim to be ID researchers) are doing.
>

And I have issue with those who present evolution as the only "right" way to think. I see nothing wrong with explaining both views and allowing children to form their own opinions over time. It might force a little critical thinking about the world and oneself, which seems to be rare in most schools today.

Also, creationism, when taught correctly, does anything but undermine teaching science. For instance,I was homeschooled through a Christian school, and my high school science curriculum was a far better course (clearer and more in depth) than any I have had in college. The intelligent design aspect came into play through Bible passages that supported the theories being related in the textbook. I'm not advocating public schools' programs being structured in this way, but it would be interesting to see the results of adapting it.

That said, I will admit that there are creationists who act as if creationism is the antithesis of science. All I can say is that they must have never read the Bible. Those of us with actual brains think one supports the other.

> Stephen
>
> P.S. I am willing to discuss whether the study of evolution is scientific, [snip]

Which is really the only point I was debating.

LaZ