Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse on the Cross Rhythms website.

Name
Email address
Article Title:	Intelligent Design Versus Evolution
Author of reported comment:	Richard Forrest
Comment Date:	15:38 on Nov 8 2010
Comment:	Ryan writes: "The knee-jerk refusal to consider an alternative to naturalism by the wider scientific community shows a clear lack of objectivity which is a scientific prerequisite" Methodological naturalism is fundamental to all science. It's the assumption that makes science possible. It does not show lack of objectivity to reject ID: it shows a lack of knowledge of the nature of science, and I suggest that Noble knows this. This does not make all scientists atheists. Many are devout adherents of their particular religion. It means that when they are using the tools of science to investigate the workings of the universe they do so under the assumption that the universe behaves in a consistent and coherent way. Without that assumption science would be a pointless exercise. Newton did not formulate his "laws" of gravity with the proviso that they would vary according to the whims of an "intelligent designer" (though if he had, I have no doubt that he would have had to honesty to refer to God when he meant God). Einstein did not formulate the relationship between matter and energy with the proviso that it only holds true if God is feeling kind. Reject science if you want, but don't think you can reject the underpinnings of science and still claim to have a position based on science. At best that shows ignorance. At worst dishonesty.

Tell us the details of your complaint:
	For verification, please type the word shown above in the box below [try a different word]