Yeah, well many believe in Sciencegod's claim that we are all doomed by the Ice Age...oops Sciencegod now calls it Global Warming. Same group which, by the way, used Sciencegod's belief that DDT would destroy all the fragile egg shells. Today, because of Sciencegod's blind ignorance, maleria deaths are now higher than they were in the 1970's. Also, didn't the Siencegod also determine that a fetus is really just a clump of cells. Gee, how scientific because even after that fetus moves through the birth canal it is STILL just a clump of cells. Darwin's theory is just that...A Theory yet to be proven but Sceincegod treats it as absolute fact.

Science is really just a bunch of mere moral human beings whose blind faith in The Sciencegod allows them to THINK the vacumn of ideas they live in will provide all the answers.

It is ironic that the Church people once thought the earth to be flat, today it is the Science people who insist that the earth is flat.

400 hundred years of scientific research and still our minds are closed to endless possibilities.

Sorry, I couldn't bother absorbing the rest of your comment after you misspelled "maleria."

PS - who is "SienceGod?" Scientific inquiry is a process prone to human distortion and error, not a representational authority figure/entity that is responsible for the ridiculous generalizations that you cite.

Had you not misspelled 'science' I would have been able to absorb your question.

Had you not made such an egregious error I would have responded with something like 'Wow, scientists are not representational authority figures. Why then do we listen to anything they have to say?'

Considering science is, thus far, created by mere mortal (oops I misspelled that one too! egads) human beings, I do not believe such citing to be a ridiculous generalization just a statement of fact. Unless, of course, another creature on this planet is in the process of perpetual inquiry into life and all that it holds. Then again what do I know, I'm just a mere mortal human being who has only lived on this ages-old planet for a very short amount of time.

PS: This time I previewed, how did I do?

(All in the spirt of fun, literally)

Had you not misspelled 'science' I would have been able to absorb your question.

I missed a key in haste to refute your silly strawman. You, on the other hand, have no clue how "malaria" is spelled, which is indicative of someone that would make the rest of your argument.

Scientists are NOT a monolithic group. The standard of what constitutes "Science" is not a monolithic organization or endeavor that's represented by its failures. There are good scientists, bad scientists and in-between scientists. There are people that pass opinion off as science, contrasted by those that apply the scientific method perfectly. Thus, your characterization of science as a monolithic entity prone to error - and thus somehow comparable to religion dressed up as science - is just ridiculous (and besides the point). They are totally different things, and you are employing a strawman for which I have little patience.

The "scientific method" is an IDEAL, with a clear purpose and methodology regarding the attempted discovery of "fact." Intelligent design and creationism have no place within this IDEAL, as they deal with an element of unknowable "faith." Intelligent Design attempts to follow the rules of this scientific ideal, but it's contingent upon "scientifically" identifying an unidentifiable benchmark - namely, what standard constitutes "higher sentience" required for "complex design." Seeing as how we don't know what higher sentience is like, we wouldn't know its handiwork when we saw it. And to know this standard would essentially be to know God.

When you figure out how faith and science are different, come back and talk to me.

"The dizzying development of this science, with its unconditional FAITH in objective reality and its complete dependency on general and rational knowable laws, led to the birth of modern technological civilization.......It was this science that enabled man, for the first time, to see Earth from space with his own eyes, that is, to see it as another star in the sky. At the same time, however, the relationship to the world that the modern science fostered and shaped now appears to have exhausted its potential. It is increasingly clear that strangely, the relationship is missing something. It fails to connect with the most intrinsic nature of reality and with natural human experience. Is is now more a source of disintegregration and doubt than a source of integration and meaning. It produces what amounts to a state of schizophrenia:

Man as an observer is becoming completely aliented from himself as a being."

Vaclav Havel from his speech "The Need for Transcendence in the Postmodern World" Philadelphia, July 4, 1994

In other words,

"As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its human dimension, and man began to lose control of it." Vaclav Havel

I am not here to argue whether one's faith (science is a form of faith just as is faith in a divine) is superior over another, just saying that we may better serve humanity by considering the idea that human beings are limiting ourselves when we faithfully adhere to an idea that we are the measure of all things. Perhaps this idea of intelligent design (creationism) will one day fill in the holes found in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I don't know the answer but it would be interesting to explore such possibility, much like those humans did when they set sail ages ago to find out if the world was really flat. However, if we continue to "believe the world is flat", so to speak, then we will never discover anything other than those IDEALS to which we faithfully adhere.

Michael Critchon gave a series of excellent speeches on the subject of modern science. He basically points out that science is failing because it is today determined simply by consensus, in other words, we must adhere faithfully to the objective reality we have established. None is to venture off the beaten trail of scientific research, ie.,the scientific establishment adheres to a blind faith that man-made climate change (ice age/global warming) will destroy us yet there are ideas emerging which disrupt this faith. The scientific establishment will not question its own faith instead it intentionally adheres to its own comfortable confined consensus.

That said, MalAria.

Sorry, that's Michael Crichton.

(It is obvious my reliance upon spell check has made me ignorantly lazy over the years...not that names are in spell check but, my preview skills woefully lack substance)

Your argument is a distraction from whether Intelligent Design IS science and belongs in a science curriculum or not. Arguing for faith's place in society is a separate - and subjectively and objectively more arguable - point than arguing for faith's injection into science.

"your argument is a distraction from whether Intelligent Design IS science"

Given your answer, I suppose this means that we will never know since we are unwilling to move beyond our comfort zone. Don't ever sail beyond the horizon because the earth is flat and you will fall off the planet.

Just because science is a form of faith does not mean I must instantly invalidate its existence.

I love this cartoon!

It unintentionally brings out the fact that it takes an intelligent human to draw a mere picture of a human, much less to build a functioning human.

Isn't it amazing that we don't find complete drawings of objects in nature, brought about by evolution?

Hans, Hans, Hans. Darwin love ya ...

Bill, tell them all to go away and come back when ID has made some bones in research and acadame. It is not a science now. Perhaps it could become a science, i don't know.

Who would teach ID in schools? There are no classes in ID in science departments of universities--where are the graduate students, the research assistants, the department chairs, the journals and peer reviewed papers, the endowments and fellowships and institutes of ID? How do you train teachers?
Don't tell me that that ID can't be proven scientifically--look at Theory of Quantum mechanics, the science of the very small. We theorized about it until we developed instrumentation and experiments that could prove parts of it, like entanglement and the double slit experiment.
Let the Discovery Institute endow a few university chairs instead of manufacturing lawsuits and propaganda for school boards. And let GW stay out of it. He made ID into a Lysenkoism, a state-sponsored psuedo-science with his meddling.