nanafabulous personjesus Posted:

I’m not sure where you got the idea that time travel is a valid scientific theory.

Actually, I shouldn’t have included time travel in that example, because one-way time travel into the future has been argued possible, using special relativity and time dilation. The effects are impractical, but measurable.

And I may have used some poor choice of words, but my point is – because something is not scientifically measurable doesn’t mean it gets thrown out. Left alone until evidence emerges? Sure. You said as much. But not thrown out.

I made another poor choice of words while bringing up theoretical science, in saying that it can only be addressed via mathematical possibility and logical reasoning, both of which I will agree that ID cannot be measured by. But the bare bones is, much of theoretical science, such as wormholes, exotic matter, etc., can’t be directly observed. Until a wormhole is observable in some way, it remains as objectionable as ID.

Philosophically, the case for ID can be argued. And while philosophy is far, FAR removed from science, and should never be approached as such, it argues a case in which ID can exist where science cannot. I never said ID has a place in science textbooks, or that it CAN be studied.

I will also agree that ID was created BY CREATIONISTS, specifically to WORK AROUND laws that PROHIBIT CREATIONISM, removing the blanket label of God from CREATIONISM so that it can be taught in clbumrooms and bring CREATIONISM back into scientific dialogue, it’s main proponent’s ARE CREATIONISTS, and it is HEAVILY used as a disguise FOR CREATIONISM. But a white horse is not a horse – creationism specifically states the creator as God, a god, etc., while ID is much trickier and depends on how one defines the term ID. There’s a complex, convoluted difference between the two, but a difference none-the-less.