n article <slrn9e714r.7io.msg@cx318157-c.chspk1.va.home.com>,

msg@cx318157-b.chspk1.va.home.com wrote:

> In article <0nf3etcpujh9mrm2c6gkbq0kpnadapgp63@4ax.com>, Dave Holloway

> wrote:

> >Phillip Johnson is under the impression that science and naturalism

> >are not the same thing. I was wondering, can anyone give me an example

> >of a supernaturalistic scientific methodology?

> >

> >

> >Dave

>

> Your question is misguided.

>

> There is no such thing as "naturalistic

> scientific methodology".

>

> And there is no such thing as "supernaturalistic

> scientific methodology".

>

>

> There is only scientific methodology, which has only to

> do with the procedures by which something is investigated;

> that is, *how* something is being investigated,

> not *what* is.

>

> That is why ID is legitimate science.

How can it be? It postulates a condition that cannot be tested for in

any way.

There is also no way to experiment for the identity of said creator, and

therefore, *no* way to tie it to a religion.

It also runs into the "first cause" logical fallacy.

"Goddidit" is just a lazy way of begging the question.

"Intelligent Design" is *not* theory. It's is *barely* a hypothesis,

and it is flawed, because it cannot be dealt with from an experimental

viewpoint. At most, it is a botched thought-experiment (also known as

"wanking").