MATT: I will reiterate that the ID movement as espoused by the CRI is antithetical to the type of thinking espoused in David's book. David's book attempts to bring into the world a scientifically sane approach, and while I don't agree that there is enough basis to make a decision, he isn't writing what he's writing to push some nazi-esque agenda. He makes an argument for design that is far superior to Behe or Dembski in that he completely abandons the generally idiotic ideas of our ancestors. (Even if I don't agree with his notion of panentheism.)-DAVID: Thank you for your comments about my mode of thought. But don't be afraid of ID. Those folks have an obvious agenda, but their discussions unearth many untenable aspects of Darwinism and of evolutionary just-so stories. I take my information where ever I can find it, and what I find doesn't damage me, or scare me. What is your problem, once you understand their agenda? They can think just as well as you can.-I heartily endorse both sets of comments here, but would like to add one of my own relating to Matt's vehement attack on the CRI, whose goal is "to transform American society from one that is secular and plural to one that is Christian and monist." That need not necessarily invalidate all their scientific arguments, as you have acknowledged implicitly in your well merited praise of David's balanced approach. The same applies to Dawkins and his ilk, who use their own scientific arguments to promote their agenda of destroying religion. (He has set up The Richard Dawkins Foundation, which supports atheistic events and organizations.) The point I wish to make here, though, is that your attack is based on precisely the arguments David and Tony were putting forward on the thread HOW RELIABLE IS SCIENCE? If we do not trust scientists when they are being paid to push a particular agenda, what credence can we give to science generally, e.g. in fields like climate, food, energy, pharmaceutics, knowing that the living of its practitioners may well be governed by the nature of their findings? And do we actually know to what extent research positions and publications are controlled by the agenda of the people in charge?
 
You write "Evidence is evidence, and the truth always comes out on top." That is a wonderful expression of faith, but can we at any given moment be certain of "the evidence", and how can we at any given moment know what is "the truth"?

Umm... Darwin wrote in support of ID.. he didn't work for CSI. I would like to point out that mainstream science has left scientist who are proponents for ID no recourse but to work for institutions like CSI by the very act of castigating them out of the scientific community. Your argument basically amounts to, "You can't work for us, but if you work for anyone else we are going to do our best to ruin your career." What kind of choice is that? What a wonderful example of open-mindedness and what a shining example of a willingness to have your dogma challenged!! I am utterly astounded by how receptive to different modes of thought science has proven itself to be!
> -The problem with ID is that the authors aren't publishing their papers in philosophical journals, they're trying to publish them in things like "Nature." -"The universe is too complex to have arisen by chance" isn't a materially supportable claim. It is however, philosophically supportable. Read David's book sometime. Many popular ID authors (especially Dembski) also have failed to correct errors in their books... not even an online errata. -> If being open to explore every avenue of thought makes me an enemy, than an enemy I am. I have no issue with being that. Though, I would think that it says more about your character than mine... just saying...
> 
> I respect Matt's dedication to the 'scientific process' but I don't share it and I certainly do not wear the same rose colored glasses he seems to.-It's not a rose-color, it's the fact that at the end of the day, any scientific claim has to be testable. "The universe is too complex to have arrived by chance" isn't a testable hypothesis. -It IS a valid PHILOSOPHY, however, and I don't hold a bad place in my mind for philosophy. Hence why I've read MOST of what's out there. -I can't stress enough--you need to read Kuhn!!!! I will send you MY copy if I have to!!!!-Scientific revolutions occur when enough upstarts challenge the current paradigm and then the whole process repeats. It's a human process, and I'm sorry, it's not going to move any faster than it already does. -But the pattern is clear--if there's any experimental merit to a new hypothesis, the paradigm will shift.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"