From: John Beckett 

"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news::
> I don't think anyone here has stated that, and I know I haven't. (we're
> arguing past each apparently other here.)  I have yet to say anything about
> ID other than that I was a Christian. (which implies a belief in intelligent
> design)

If you believe that being a Christian implies a belief in ID, you are
talking about a VERY different thing from the ID concept that is used when
people discuss evolution.

> >In fact, ID is meaningless waffle designed
> > to make people who haven't thought about the issues believe that there is
> > scientific proof for various peculiar belief systems.
>
> That is offensive and uncalled for.

The "ID" I am talking about really does justify my remark, which
is NOT offensive, and is very called for. I am NOT talking about belief in
Christianity. ID is only a few years old - it is not part of Christianity!

> May be, but we're arguing the same point, that being that even in science
> there are components of "faith".

I Googled "define:faith" and found the following (if you can do
better, please let me know):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
[There are several aspects to the word "faith" - following is
just one from above]
"Most Jews, Christians and Muslims admit that whatever particular
evidence or reason they may possess that their God exists and is deserving
of trust, is not ultimately the basis for their believing. Thus, in this
sense faith refers to belief beyond evidence or logical arguments,
sometimes called "implicit faith"."

Some scientists could have a faith in a particular line of reasoning - a
belief for which they HOPE to find evidence. But that is not what science
is about, and no scientist appeals to faith to support a particular point
of view.

Perhaps you would outline what you think are comparable faiths in religion
and science.

John

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