Once again, you have failed to see the two-edged sword. Try applying the criteria equally. Learn about subjective and objective truth. Find out that modern science follows the subjective route. Understand Integral Calculus and what it says about dating theories. Understand that "random chance through time" is as much a "contention" as the ID basis. Do a deep dive on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
What absolute completely irrelevant hogwash. ID is not even considered by serious scientists due to the almost total lack of evidence available upon which to apply the scientific method. The arguments that evidence exists are specious. Have you considered that perhaps the universe is not "fine-tuned" to support life, but that life is well adapted to survive in its universally diverse environments? Which is the more likely premise? Absent pre-conception, there is nothing objectively compelling to support your conclusions. Science works on a foundation of dis-belief. Always trying to falsify its own findings. Your methodology is exactly the opposite. Trying to find proof. Ergo, not science.
Once again, you have failed to see the two-edged sword. Try applying the criteria equally. Learn about subjective and objective truth. Find out that modern science follows the subjective route. Understand Integral Calculus and what it says about dating theories. Understand that "random chance through time" is as much a "contention" as the ID basis. Do a deep dive on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Q: Is Intelligent Design science?
A: No.
What absolute completely irrelevant hogwash. ID is not even considered by serious scientists due to the almost total lack of evidence available upon which to apply the scientific method. The arguments that evidence exists are specious. Have you considered that perhaps the universe is not "fine-tuned" to support life, but that life is well adapted to survive in its universally diverse environments? Which is the more likely premise? Absent pre-conception, there is nothing objectively compelling to support your conclusions. Science works on a foundation of dis-belief. Always trying to falsify its own findings. Your methodology is exactly the opposite. Trying to find proof. Ergo, not science.
Loved the precision of your argument and the clarity of your vocabulary. So rich!