On 22-4-2011 1:16, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/21/2011 15:46, andrel wrote:
>> In it's purest form ID does not give an explanation what did happen if it
>> wasn't evolution.
>
> Then why is it called "intelligent design" if in its purest form it's
> not hypothesizing intelligent design?
>
>> point in defending that ID in the form stated above
>
> I disagree that ID is "some things didn't evolve." That's backing off so
> far that one is simply searching hopelessly for anything that's
> non-disprovable.

No, just to the point where it is in principle provable, but in practice 
not. If it is non-disprovable it is not science anymore. So you cannot 
cross that line.



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message