Updates

Links have been updated in Ben´s latest post. Visit them here:

Wikipedia on ID

I´ve a new question to guide the debate:

Most of the controversy over ID, aside from the obvious religious associations, seems to come from the fact that ID is not, by the latest definitions of science, actually science. "Science," as it is currently defined, accepts only naturalistic and materialistic explanations for events. ID accepts that there might be something else.

Here´s the question - what good reasons do we have for sticking to the current definition, or revising the definition, or any other options available?

I ask because the "only materialistic and naturalistic explanations" definition is very, very new (historically, anyway), originating specifically for the purpose of eliminating even the possibility of creators.

For a while, it was a great boon to science, because it kept scientists doggedly on one track, and they discovered a great deal. Now, however, they seem to have reached the end of the line. It may be prudent to expand the definition of science.

There´s obviously a host of objections one can make here ("scientists have not reached the end of the line," "that historical analysis is flawed," "the definition of science has never changed," etc.) Have at it.

And one more thing, to get the ball rolling - Emeryroolz made the following statement a few weeks ago:

“It's the legitimate ID theorists you should be paying attention to, the ones who have a serious scientific problem wth the current scientific explanation. Why should they not be allowed to speak?”

Because they have nothing to speak about yet. Again, no research, no data, no evidence, nothing. Why should we waste school time for American kids, who are already light years behind most of the rest of the world in science, on a bunch of religious nonsense? And say what you want about ID NOT being tied to religion. The ONLY reason it's being forced on us now is because RELIGIOUS people want it, because it's compatible with THEIR religion. Evidence and facts be damned!

I shall now chide Emery for bad research. Read the following two articles, one favorable to ID, the other not:

Dembski asking five questions

Mark Issac answering at least one of them (about SETI)

The point here is not so much who is right, but that ID is taken seriously enough to warrant a serious response by serious scientists. ID theorists most definitely do have something to speak about yet, Emery.