<<Perhaps one should provide the
ACLU (and the general scientific community) with a viable example
of creation theory before claiming that the ACLU doesn't make a
distinction. Perhaps the ACLU has never had the opportunity to
make an evaluation?>>
One would hope. IMO, it wouldn't matter to them.
<<Would you mind describing this "theoretical alternative"? Are the
axioms and auxillary hypotheses required for making creationism
testible up for verification? In other words, the contention that God
(or something) created organisms separately doesn't by itself describe
the patterns of life observed. >>
This is a little off-topic. My point was about the ACLU's zeal in seeking to
ban the book.
I suggest that anyone interested in the actual arguments read the actual book.
It speaks for itself (and the wonderful essay by Steve Meyer and Mark Hartwig
puts it all into perspective). Once again, there is no mention of God. The
book is about intelligent design. Is it scientific to posit such inferences?
Of course. Ask Carl Sagan, who keeps looking for intelligent signs of life in
the universe (which may explain why he never comes to L.A.)
<<Basically, I feel
that "scientific" creationists must do more than harp on the current
incompleteness of evolutionary theory and scientific knowledge to gain
acceptance of their alternate ideas. Give us something with real
substance and applicability.>>
Again, I suggest reading the book before reaching a conclusion. And look for
Mike Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" later this summer.
Enjoy.
Jim