

|
| As with any evidentiary question in which present day evidence is used to determine a past historical event (as scientists do all the time in crime solving, archeology, and anthropology), it's the interpretation of the evidence against competing explanatory theories that permits one to converge on a best explanation. GENERAL EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN: In the case of origins science the present day evidence in nature can be viewed in light of alternative explanatory causes. To a priori rule out intelligent causation and mandate only explanations involving unintelligent causes removes the inquiry from the realm of science.[1] Insisting that science can only consider unintelligent causation converts origins science into unchallengeable dogma. Science should be tentative, considering all reasonable causal inferences based on observed material data. Footnotes: 1. One characteristic of religion is the presence of dogmatic views. The mark of true science is tentativeness in holding to theories. Ironically, once a theory like Darwinism becomes unchallengeable based on the supposed religious implications of a competing theory, Darwinism itself is converted from science to religion. |


|
|
|
|

| We all have the same evidence to work with. Think about it -- if Intelligent Design is true, it's ALL evidence of intelligent design. How can we know? We simply consider what is the best inference to draw from the evidence we all observe. |