Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
If you are referring to God, God isn't a thing. Things exist separate from other things, God exists separate from nothing...
Your material logic always breaks down around the concept of infinite, eternal, unlimited...
Of course, what to expect of a limited brain?
Your so called science validates on the basis of a lack of information, a wild guess, an assumption that shows no method to verify it beyond continued ignorance...
You're right. Science does break down around concepts of infinite, eternal and unlimited...
Science requires measurability, and Infinity is not measurable. However, the scientific method routinely uses Calculus as a means of hypothesizing and then measures as far as reasonably possible, even though it is recognized that the limit of a function cannot be ascertained with absolute precision.
So your comments about limitlessness, while valid, are irrelevant to determining the scientific reliability of evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory is measurable within reasonable limits.
Conversely, ID is not measurable within limits, because if it were, then someone would have measured it by now.
If Dembski's formulas were so terrific, IDers would be able to measure the specified complexity of any object and thereby quantify the amount of intelligent design therein.
The math could be use to determine, for example, whether an artifact which looks like an ancient stone axe, is actually one, or whether it only looks like one.
There are pattern matching algorithms which can be used analyze a digitized portion of a painting and determine if it is an original or a forgery.
An ID advocate should use said algorithms to various organic DNA and see if any life form falls far outside the normal distribution. If one does, then maybe that life form was designed by an alien rather than being the product of natural evolution.
But, all of this ducks the real issue. There is no scientific test that can ever discover anything about a limitless creator, because as you have pointed out, science breaks down in this area.
So, you are left with a public policy statement. Science cannot absolutely rule out a creator, therefore the creator should be given equal weight in the biological sciences, even though all of the measurable evidence rejects the influence of a creator.
That's fine as public policy. But it's not science, because science reasonably excludes attempts at measuring the unmeasurable. If this wasn't the case, there would be no science. Everything would be philosophy.
Which is, obviously, what you want, because it's what you continuously preach without interruption.
