Creationist Wolf in Cheap Clothing

It would be more accurate to say "competing" rather than "contradictory." One doesn't say that the other is wrong, but you're correct that they don't currently fit. It's much the same as how our macro model of relativity and micro model of quantum mechanics don't currently work together. We know that both are true on their particular scales, but we haven't figured out how they fit together.

 

In light of the many, many times science has been wrong, I have to question if it can truly prove anything.

They build bridges with rocks and wood and they were building them long before science existed.

 

1) It's a contrarian hypothesis to Darwinism, based on deductions from logical and natural evidences. Some churches have used it to attack the scientific community for personal or political motives, but that doesn't mean that in its purest form, it's unworthy of consideration.

2) Yes, in large part. I'd agree with that.

3) The Genesis account is one bit of evidence, but I'd argue it's probably not the foundation of ID. Religious influences could be completely stripped away and it could still be considered in the abstract.

1) sci·ence (sns)
n.

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
The hangup I think some people might have about ID being scientific is the part of the definition that refers to "experimental investigation". However, I would argue that there is evidence for ID based on negative results in experimental investigation and observation in the natural world. Now the merit of that evidence can be in dispute, but it's still evidence.

 

See HH's response. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

 

Who needs a bridge when you can walk on water?

 

Jesus didn't need science. I do. :supergrin

 

or the method of collecting the data at the edge of the universe.

 

I have a perfect understanding of what science is. One thing it most definately is is fallible.

 

No. Contradictory.

Big Bang says the universe started with a big explosion. If so, then the edges of teh universe would be expected to be slowing down. But they aren't. In fact they are speeding up.

That leaves us with one of 3 possibilities.

1. The Big Bang Theory is incomplete or wrong
2. The Theory of Gravity is incomplete or wrong
3. Our ability to analyze these things scientifically is incomplete or wrong

 

superior? you mean, in the sense that a science class that teaches science is superior to one that teaches philosophy?