From: Ellen K. 

Very well stated but will likely be ignored.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:40:52 -0500, "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message :

>What you describe as what ID says is NOT what I have been commenting upon
>about ID.   It might be what someone else has said, but it is NOT what I
>have been saying.
>
>I've been merely pointing out that the hypotheses regarding the development
>of life from something not alive all the way to modern man are obviously not
>based upon direct observation and include many assumptions.  Those
>assumptions require one to *believe* they are true and correct without proof
>that they are true and correct.  That belief in those assumptions is a form
>of *faith*.  I'm pointing out that those in the wholly scientific stance
>have *faith* in their beliefs about the development of life.  That they have
>things that they have *faith* are true and correct even though they are at
>the very best merely implied/hinted at by some fossil or something
>somewhere.  These same people then deride *faith* as though its not
>scientific without even attempting to acknowledge the level of *faith* they
>use everyday in their *belief* systems.
>
>Gary
>
>"Steve Ewing"  wrote in message
>news:op.sz9faszgsagvys{at}news.barkto.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:54:03 -0500, Gary Britt

>> wrote:
>>
>> > science posits theories to explain existence without proof or method
>> > also.
>> > That's the real point.
>> > Gary
>>
>> The point --the *whole* point-- is that there *is* a method!  What's it
>> called?  "The Scientific Method."  As Tony says,
contruct a hypothesis
>> based on observed facts and test it.  If it passes the test, OK, on to the
>> next test.  If it fails, it's out.  They are still testing the theory of
>> relativity 100 years after it was first proposed, and that displaced the
>> theory of gravity 300 years after *it* was proposed.
>>
>> A scientific hypothesis must be able to predict the results of a test.
>> What does ID say?  "It was designed/created that way." 
May as well say it
>> was touched by His Noodly Appendage.  No test can possibly fail under
>> those circumstances.  If ID made predictions that could be tested, then
>> they would be, and ID could stand or fall on its merits just as evolution
>> does.
>>
>> --
>> Steve 
>> http://www.qmss.com/~sewing
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5