> Ian wrote: > Now the scientists that are working on them may or may not consider them ID, > but many IDists have jumped on them to be a foundation for their arguments. >
The point is being predictive or behavioral: Physics is predictive of how physical objects interact, usually kinetically Chemistry is predictive of how chemicals interact with the env and each other. Biology is the predictive of how biological entities interact with the env and each other. Evolution is a piece of biology and is predictive of where an organism will evolve. As such is can also be extrapolated backwards - where an organism came from. ID does is not predictive therefore it can say nothing about the future or past. This is why it's a mythology. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:214026 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
