[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee Ok, I can accept that. My use of the term "theory" was obviously in error, in what started out (for me, at least) as an informal discussion. I have since checked out the scientific definition of the term and I am open minded enough to admit my mistake. Based on this, ID is a hypothesis, not a theory.

No. It's not. At least not in the scientific sense. Again you are using the common connotation of a word in a scientific context. An hypothesis is like a theory except that it has not been tested. It is a statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles. Of course an hypothesis can be used as the basis for experimentation by which it may be confirmed. The facts are empirical observations of naturalistic phenomena. An hypothesis is capable of being falsified, i.e., shown to be incorrect. That is not the case with ID creationism. It is an assertion based on no observed facts and it cannot be falsified. It is neither a theory nor an hypothesis. It is religion.

Quote by: Zeebadee Ok, I'll keep that in mind. What was it that I claimed to oppose though?

Your discussion so far opposes science.

Quote by: Zeebadee Religion is generally defined as a belief in and reverence for some sort of supernatural creator. Isn't it possible that the universe could have been created without any supernatural power having been exercised?

That's what "creation" means, so no, it isn't possible. It is possible that the universe came into existence by natural causes, but that isn't "creation" in the context of creationism, which is what you are arguing.

Quote by: Zeebadee You're making an unfounded assertion here. You know nothing about either my "weak faith" or whether I am Christian or not.

But it doesn't make sense for you to assume a position of fundamentalist christianity if that is not true. I guess you might be a fundamentalist Muslim.

Quote by: Zeebadee Are you implying that I am a "fundie"?? Another unfounded assertion?

No, it's not. The assertion is based on the fact that you are presenting standard fundy dogma. If you are not, then why argue from that position?

Quote by: Zeebadee Actually, I'm not quite sure what it is that you think I am opposing.

So far, science.

Quote by: Zeebadee Magic? Mythology? 6000 years?? Proof?? I don't think I've made any such claims.

But the religious position that you have taken implies that you are.

Quote by: Zeebadee BTW, your sarcasm and snideness contributes nothing to the discussion and is uncharacteristic of your apparent fondness for scientific methods.

First of all, claims of the scientific nature of creationism and ID creationism are so fundamentally ignorant that they don't deserve respect. Secondly, to challenge scientific ideas without bothering to learn the basics is an indication of immaturity.

Quote by: Zeebadee Yes, it does, Dicknose. In spite of your arrogant manner, you have managed to impart some knowledge. Good for you!

North of Boston there is a peninsula into the Atlantic with a town on it, both named Marblehead. "Light dawns on old Marblehead" is a common expression in that part of Massachusetts when someone has finally grasped a difficult concept. People often apply it to themselves. I lived near there some years ago. Sorry if my regionalism offended you.

By the way, calling names, as you have done, is not allowed on this board. It isn't "friendly." You should watch that.

Quote by: Zeebadee Then, (asking respectfully) isn't it illogical to try and compare creationism and evolution, as this thread is titled?

Yes, but it is the creationists and ID creationists who create the discussion by trying to pretend that their religiously motivated ideas are scientific. Thus, one who needs the assurance that their faith is somehow scientific has weak faith. Typically such people are scientifically illiterate and fail to even understand the meaning of terms as used by scientists. Sometimes such ignorance is intentional since the misapplication of definitions is a means to attack science.