On UD, barry arrington said:
"Please understand the distinction between metaphysical arguments and scientific arguments on this blog. ID proponents make both kinds of arguments, but when they are making the former they are NOT making ID arguments."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey barry, sane people already know the difference between scientific and metaphysical arguments and already know that all of the arguments for ID are metaphysical. There are no scientific arguments for ID, they're all metaphysical arguments.
If UD is "Serving the Intelligent Design Community", and if you and the other IDiots want ID to be taken as a "scientific" theory/inference, then why do you and the other IDiots argue it as a metaphysical, religious belief system?
Where's the 'science', barry-boi?
"Please understand the distinction between metaphysical arguments and scientific arguments on this blog. ID proponents make both kinds of arguments, but when they are making the former they are NOT making ID arguments."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey barry, sane people already know the difference between scientific and metaphysical arguments and already know that all of the arguments for ID are metaphysical. There are no scientific arguments for ID, they're all metaphysical arguments.
If UD is "Serving the Intelligent Design Community", and if you and the other IDiots want ID to be taken as a "scientific" theory/inference, then why do you and the other IDiots argue it as a metaphysical, religious belief system?
Where's the 'science', barry-boi?
