We've been through this before. The current philosophies and definition of science do not recognize the existence of immaterial things.
Well, of course they do. Every physical entity without mass is "immaterial" - electromagnetic radiation, gravity, the strong and the weak nuclear force, etc. It doesn't get more immaterial than a force field!
What science does not and never can recognize is the existence of a metaphysical entity, like a Creator, because it exists by its very definition beyond the physical world and its laws of causality. You can only speculate about such an entity, or seek to experience it by the means of intuition. You can never, ever make it a subject of scientific inquiry and this is why Intelligent Design is not science but religion and dogma in disguise.
Radiation, gravity, nuclear force, these are physical and/or properties of material objects/substances. It does not matter that we don't fully understand them. I did not say *matter* as in matter vs energy or matter vs emergent property. Consciousness is an emergent property of the physical and material. Material vs immaterial is all an ID creationist understands, even if imperfectly, and they use is synonymously with physicalism and naturalism. Gods and supernatual stuffs are immaterial, one of ID's complaints about the acceptance of evolution is the popularity of what they call 'scientific materialism'. This is one of the ways you can argue that ID is not scientific, by using their own crap definitions against them, since they refuse to use the standard definitions.
A metaphysical being (what is that?) is not beyond the reach of science unless you've defined it that way. A SUPERNATURAL being is, and you are using these two terms synonymously, which is very pop culture of you to do. In any case I'm not going to be arguing this kind of philosophy with you in this thread.
The agency's properties and nature aren't really relevant here unless they make it part of their definition of ID. So far they only make 'intelligent' part of the agency's definition, this is not an unscientific or necessarily religious concept in and of itself. My argument against is ID is superior because it does not need to drag religion or anyone's motivations into the matter, it doesn't need to assume ID is religious or that the intelligent agency is supernatural, immaterial or however they are defining their gods today. It doesn't need to assume anything about the agency. The ID creationist cannot cry straw man at my argument as they can at yours. ID is not a scientific theory because it explains nothing, proposes no mechanism, that is the absolute bottom line and it is indisputable. If you do not argue in this manner then all you offer are opportunities for ID creationists to play the misunderstood victim card and the 'stupid evolutionist' card. Arguing in any other way than the very bare bones strictly science-minded manner I did will only give the ID creationist ample room to drag out the debate, and that's all they want to do.
Shadowhawk was DONE when I pressed that argument. He did not reply for some time after I got done with him. He came back to life only because other people came back to the thread with inferior arguments that were easier for him to talk back to. This kind of thing happens all the time and not even with this subject or person.
SH posted a video of a prominent ID proponent who inadvertently argued that any 'material explanation' of the diversity of life would be incorrect. He meant natural, or physical; creationists tend to blur all three of these together. In any case what he means is a scientific explanation by current definitions of science, always remember that they are unequivocably against what they perceive to be 'scientific materialism'.
Edited by Duchykins, 05 July 2014 - 07:31 PM.
What does this have to do with the topic. ID is in.
