You are now confusing beliefs and science. If you want to claim scientifically that there is an intelligent
designer, after all that is the goal of the ID movement?, then you have to show why your hypothesis is
better than the far simpler and elegant hypothesis. You have to show how it explains better the observations and how it is a better hypothesis.
Bertvan: It is a consistent position, and you seem content with it. My only
objection to any of it is when someone tries to impose it upon others by
such intimidating tactics as declaring theirs is the only "scientific"
position.
So far it seems that it is.
Bertvan: There is no "scientific position" on the existence or non
existence of god.
Very good, so why address it then?
Bertvan: There is no scientific position on whether the laws of
nature are the result of random processes or the result of rational design.
So why complicate it then by adding something that cannot be addressed scientifically.
Bertvan: When I first read Johnson and Denton, I thought, "How nice! Someone finally
expressed some of the things I've always believed." I probably disagreed
with both about religion, but then I'm used to holding minority opinions. I
never became emotionally in the controversy until I saw that any challenge to
the most orthodox of Darwinism was met by bitter personal attacks upon such
challengers.
Bitter personal attacks? Or was it attacks on the flawed science and arguments of Johnson?
Bertvan: The truth is, even Young Earth Creationists pose no danger to
science.
They do as long as they insist that their "science" should be included as science.
Bertvan: A belief in alien abductions poses no danger to science. The only
danger to science would lie in a passionate defense of some orthodox theory
because it fit the philosophical position of some vocal "defenders of
science"
There is no inherent danger in defending an "orthodox" theory, there is obvious danger in allowing religious belief and faith to dictate science. That's why YEC does pose a danger to science.
.