Thank you for that...

'Whole' is where the word 'Holy' comes from:



And wthin 'a whole' are at least two parts or.... diverse entities. You cannot seperate unity or wholeness from its necessary diversity.

The very fact that you are contradicting me, points out that you expect unity within the diversity of any arguments and evidence brought to bear. But by your very argumentation and evidence you help me illustrate the point.

I am forever in your debt...

What science uses as a basic assumption is simply that the universe can be understood by humans.

“…Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true. It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory itself would have been arrived at by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved no argument was sound -a proof that there are no such things as proofs- which is nonsense.” ( C.S. Lewis / Miracles / Chap 3 The Cardinal difficulty of Naturalism pgs 21,22 )

Logic was the first science, and upon this rock we build our towers and move mountains. Natural science came after the acceptance of the validity of logical reasoning...

...Listen to how Paul Davies (theoretical physicist / Arizona State University) admits the real history of science, yet still dodges the implication. “The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.



Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.



But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ‘Theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.



That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.” ( Paul Davies / The Privileged Planet Q&A segment )

So science is faith. And it is faith in logic. And that is a very interesting observation since now we must remember that, any logical equation or test requires at least two entities (or witnesses). The coherence of at least two entities becomes the third element in the equation. Assuming the entities involved achieve coherence, then theory + evidence = knowledge. All scientific observation is therefore triune in principle. There is no escaping this reality. No claim is scientifically valid without the testimony of at least two witnesses. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. All of those qualities assume the law of contradiction to be valid and are dependant upon its application.

Agreed!

And this is how I posited and supported that concept in my argumentation:

Objectivity is simply the ability of different people to take the same set of observations/data and arrive at the same conclusion/interpretation - regardless of different religious/philosophical backgrounds or beliefs. Again, you seem to be saying that "intelligent design" doesn't do that and therefore is neither objective nor scientific.

Why do people pay any attention to the nonsense called ID and Creationism?

Why do you ask loaded questions rather than debate the issues? You might as well concede that you have no rebuttal. If that is the case then leave room for those who do. Lobbing insults from the balcony is not in any way worthy of intellectual integrity. If you don't like the show, then by all means... the door is over there.

Why do you ask loaded questions rather than debate the issues?

You are not raising issues. You are just doing cut-and-paste jobs. We can't debate CS Lewis.

Design most certainly does do that. Not all design advocates are Christians. Some are Buhddists, some are New Agers, and some are naturalists....

So let me reword it.

Why do people pay any attention to ID and Creationism?

Design is simply the only logical explanation for life on earth.

Then you come up against the other unscientific aspect of design - the unobservable designer.

The problem is that you cannot argue against the concepts presented because they are the logical reasoning you use to debate and discover scientifically.

For the love of reason, there is no observable mechanism whereby chemicals can evolve into life.

Because it is reality. Design is simply the only logical explanation for life on earth. But as Dawkins says in his interview with Ben Stein, maybe life evolved elsewhere.

Maybe...