"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:498736d9$1@news.povray.org...

> That says it all, really. While scientists must provide sound experimental
> or empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, ID proponents merely point
> out the things that scientist do not know for certain and use that to
> dismiss everything else. Something you often hear in the scientific
> community is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The only
> logical conclusion one can make is that ID is not a science.

Not really, I am afraid, for if absence of evidence (that ID is science) is
not evidence of absence, whether ID is science or not would remain an open
question. The much more rigorous principle to apply in such cases is the "if
it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" principle.

Post a reply to this message