Jerry Avins wrote:
> Bryan Hackney wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Species jumping evidence is very close to if not zero. If it were not,
>> we would know about it, because the evolution proponents are desparate to
>> keep their religion (sic) afloat. It may be a religion without a diety,
>> but it requires no more faith than your garden variety deity based
>> religion.
>
>
> For the record: "sic" is Latin for "thus", and is used in quotations to
> mean "his error, not mine".
>

"sic" - retained or written intentionally, according to American Heritage.
I looked it up after your comment - I was not sure myself.

> All beliefs are ultimately based on faith. Science is distinguished from
> other faiths in that it makes testable predictions. Most sciences evolve
> as their unsupportable theories are modified to conform to experimental
> observation or replaced altogether. Evolution is no exception, but it is
> remarkable how robust Darwin's outline has proved to be.
>
> If a belief system isn't falsifiable (i.e. if it doesn't lead to
> predictions that can be checked against reality) it isn't science. True
> or not, intelligent design isn't science.

I don't have a dog in this fight - my job is to point out the fantasy
of macro-evolution, not to promote ID as part of science (or anything else).
The ID argument is a straw man or even a red herring when used in this
manner. Of course, the ID argument is what brings the topic out to begin with.
If not for that, we would let the evolutionists go about their fantasies without
bothering them.

>
> The agency of a deity is commonly invoked in the absence mechanistic
> knowledge. A common diagnosis in army field hospitals in Korea was
> "GOK": God only knows.
>
> Jerry