"If scientists openly acknowledged that "science is a game", then
perhaps there would be no problem with "intelligent causation" being
"ruled out". Indeed why could there not be another "game" where
"intelligent causation" is *not* "ruled out"?
The fact is that the "game" of science is played with deadly
seriousness, and the taxpayers funds of those who don't subscribe to
its rules are expropriated to help pay for the "game". The players of
the "game" ensure that no other "game" can get started and
pronouncements are regularly made by the key players about the
legitimacy of other "games".
"
1. There is another game. It is called philosophy.
2. Anyone who wants to can play "science" with Phil Johnson's rules. But
the fact is, others will either see him playing philosophy, or
cheating in the game of science.
3. Taxpayer funds appear (to me) to be an irrelevant side issue.
Burgy