Ditto.

The real danger from the culture we have created is its propensity for removing a sense of the personal in all of our outside interactions with each other.

That's what I sense is the biggest difference between today's culture and yesterday's. The real harm, of course, is that those who have never experienced it do not recognize its absence and assume that this is the way it's supposed to be and those who have, tend to forget what it was that made it different.

I'm with you, luna.

Pay attention when those who know what they are talking about speak with you; you might learn something.

When we speak of "testable" or "measurable" in regards to the question we are addressing, we are not speaking about belief in God since that is the CONCLUSION we are attempting to either affirm or, in your case, deny.

It is the evidence that supports that conclusion that we present for testing or measuring; not the conclusion itself. Understand?

If you can demonstrate any proposition put forth by an ID proponent,as being true, that cannot be tested or measured, I'd love to hear it.

"Intelligent Design is simply a term that was made up to make creationism sound like science and attempt to get it into textbooks. Whatever you call it, it's bogus. It isn't science, it can't be demonstrated or proven, and the only way its promoters can make their case is by trying to discredit evolution science."

No, actually Intelligent Design, while having philosophical implications (what doesn't?) uses testable and measurable scientific arguments to discredit the bad science that has grown up around the misnamed "evolution science".

That is its point. That is its ONLY point.

What the critics of ID consistently fail to acknowledge are the philosophical implications of their "science" while disallowing ID on the...

nor did she bother to read the link.

"A university would no longer represent the universe of thought, and would become only a place of propaganda."

"Start with the untestable Intelligent Designer and go on from there."

That's the point of the inquiry.

And the point of my criticism of Scientism. If you are looking for a testable hypothesis for Someone whom it is acknowledged is untestable through scientific inquiry alone are you really looking or trying to avoid having to see?

What part of Intelligent Design is untestable? The scientific or the philosophical?

1)"How do you propose to answer that question?"

Well, speaking only for myself, I take all those things which I KNOW to be true and plug them into the two competing ideas and assess which one is more logical and empirically sound according to the evidence plugged in and make my decision accordingly, just like every other important decision I have to make.

But that's just me.

"2)Why does it need to be answered?"

Ask yourself why people like Dawkins feel the need to refute it.

"Surely you don't think demands for evidence for claims is the exclusive property of science."

Not at all. And that's exactly my point. Can we first agree that it is neither possible nor desirable to separate the...

Well, some of the comments make up for what it lacks.

I particularly like MacQ's amongst others.