@farmerman,
Quote:Leadfoot Quote:
"It does not make one iota of difference to the work a scientist does in the field of biology whether evolution is driven by natural selection or intelligent design"
How would one propose any research that was based upon a presumption of ID??
That was not my point but of course you could do that. In a way, we already do. Science makes the assumption that there is a logic and order to virtually everything when looking for answers. 'God does not play dice with the universe' and all that.
The much reviled Discovery Institute does that as well. Even in 'your' science, many studies are done, not by doing new experiments but by looking for patterns in massive amounts of data from previous research. That is more or less what D.I. is doing.
Or for a more direct example, Let's say it's a hundred years ago and we still thought the universe had no beginning. Hubble could have asked for a grant to see if it DID have a beginning based on the idea of ID. He would not likely have found funding for that but it obviously would have succeded. Of course Hawking would come back and say it was created, but from nothing. But still...
My original point was that ID or natural selection makes zero difference in almost all bio research. I don't know how you would be able to tell the difference in the rest.
To refute the idea that ID is not testable, let me propose one testing whether evolution's spontaneous emergence of life is possible. NASA's scientists recently confidently claimed that we will find signs of extraterrestial life (not just 'organic molecules') in the next decade. ID would suggest that this is not likely. Not a 100% definitive test, but few experiments are.
