I'll take a look when I get back from a few days away. Perhaps you could take a look at The Origin of Species while I'm gone.

Yet another throwaway line, without a skerrick of justification.

>>Intelligent design is just one of a number of theories.. and just as valid unless one's presuppositions would exclude it 'dogmatically'<<

Of course, every theory is "valid", but only in the sense that it is a free country, and you are able to express your opinion on anything from global warming to time travel.

The difference is that any theory on global warming is usually accompanied by some form of evidence. It may be credible, it may be incredible, it may be the result of years of dedicated research or it may be invented on the spot in order to attract attention. Time travel, on the other hand, cannot be proven to exist one way or another - there is literally no evidence; it can only exist theoretically.

The theories of evolution and intelligent design differ in one key respect. Evolutionary theory is accompanied by documented facts, while intelligent design theory is accompanied by nothing more than conjecture.

And while it is quite possible that the present theories of evolution might change, or be adjusted, or be scrapped entirely in the face of new evidence, the same cannot be said about intelligent design. Being only a "fill-in" theory, that relies on the audience agreeing to leaps of logic of a very similar magnitude to leaps of faith, nothing can be added to it, or subtracted from it. It can only ever exist in theory.

Yes, it is a theory. But it doesn't require any form of "dogmatic presuppositions" to exclude it from rational discourse on the topic.

Boazy: "Science... can neither prove nor disprove"

Poor old Boazy demonstrates yet again that he doesn't understand science. Whether this is due to a poor education or an intellectual deficit is unclear, but he seems quite incapable of comprehending that the scientific paradigm differs fundamentally from the magical thought that characterises his worldview.

Science certainly can "prove" its theories and hypotheses, subject to confidence intervals and probability. However, the hypothetico-deductive model it employs cannot "disprove" anything, and makes no claim to.

The magical thinking that characterises religion, however, can "prove" or "disprove" anything its credulous adherents choose to believe. This is, of course, why religious types are so antagonistic towards those who hold different beliefs to themselves - when reality is defined in magical terms there is no objectivity, so there is no ultimate arbiter beyond faith.

Science, on the other hand, can either prove that phenomena exist, or it cannot. The paradigm itself cannot "disprove" anything.

CJ said:

"subject to confidence intervals and probability"

exxxxxactly :) Thank you for making my point.

and thats EXACTLY how it is regarding the reports of and evidence for..the resurrection of Christ.

Game..Set... nah.I won't say it.. you will be back for another punishing game soon :)

So, Boazy, what's the probability that Christ didn't rise from the dead?

0.01? 0.05? 0.5? 1?

Gibo
Sorry I didnt see your post earlier. Yes the old saying the proof of the pudding etc. Then to add insult to injury the same chistains use the argument that live exports and Animal cruelty is political and outside their area. All this mind you while they stand for political elections and remain quite in regards to cruelty to Gods creatures to get their hands on the Government grants handed out to Church leaders etc and Christian schools to keep their darling little mouths shut.
Mind you the real christain catholic Church leader that attended Steve Feildings office with us who has lived in ME telling Family first Steve Feilding how dreadfully these Australian Animals are treated IS doing the Lords work
It was a hot day and we travelled from QLD to Vic.
Charming people. Not an offer of a cuppa or coffee or even a sip of water.
Yep they are christians all right.
Give me the wonderful man of God who travelled so far for npo self gain to TRY to reach Family First.
Gods creatures is very much the churches responsibilty.
Shame on Steve Fielding and Family first.
Praise the lord we have a good Christain who cared enough to `try` to reach him.