flynn23 wrote:
] I agree, but I find it humorous that the same logic that's
] being used to despute ID (or creationism, or whatever you want
] to call it) is the same logic that's being used to bolster
] evolution. That being since nothing has come along to disprove
] it, it must be correct.

No one in science uses this logic. The logic is, since its experimentally verifiable, its probably correct. Thats why its called a Theory. This gets messy because lay-people think a theory is any idea you happen to come up with that could be plausible. They don't understand the distinction between a "theory" in lay-terms (which is really a hypothesis) and a scientific Theory. A Theory is not "something that could be possible," its something that is likely to be possible based on experimental results.

] Where science fails us is in the very point you make, which is
] that there are things in the universe that cannot be explained
] YET, so you must use faith and assumption to eventually get
] there. That's not to say cease questioning.

These guys aren't just advocating that questioning stop. What they are advocating is that we should not teach experimentally verifiable results, but instead we should teach whatever politically favorable hypothesis we feel like.

The idea that "we'll never understand everything" does not give you license to throw out what we do understand just because you don't like it. Nor does it give you the license to "fill in the blanks" with your favorite hypothesis and call it a scientific truth.

] So what's to make us believe that we'll even
] have the mental capacity to understand It All? Which, in my
] mind, gives more credence to the creationist idea, since if it
] was architected by something else... obviously something
] greater than that which was created... that it would be
] impossible to understand it all.

No scientist has ever claimed that he understands "It All." Thats what religions do. Thats the whole problem here. :) The point of science is to assume that you don't understand unless you can prove otherwise. The point of religion is to assume that you do understand and operate based on that assumption.

RE: Wired 12.10: George Gilder is Dead!