e.g. They've found the physical City of David. It existed after all.
And IF that's true, and IF that was the only claim made in the Bible, you would have a point.
A scientific paper doesn't include methodologies for testing
some of its claims; It includes methodologies for testing them
all (which is why each paper tends to make only very limited claims).
Am I to take it that the ONLY things from the Bible that you believe are those with archaeological evidence that you can go and look at for yourself?
Or are you kidding yourself that a handful of verifiable facts, in a big book, imply that
every claim in that book must be the truth?
The physical city of Troy (Ilium) has been discovered; that doesn't mean that the Greek gods exist.
Interestingly by your "analysis of god comparisons" to the Abrahamic God: If they're all the same, who then is arguing the case for the existence of greek gods, or Norse gods, as Christians do for the Abrahamic God? Did they die out in the flood?
The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.
Its called progress. Human curiosity drives us to better our understanding of the world, to both slake our thirst for knowledge and understanding, and
to produce technological advances that better the lot of our species.
Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too.
Thee is no progress here — not for you, anyway. Not a single person here has denied that ID is a hypothesis. Here’s another hypothesis: Santa Claus comes down the chimney each Christmas and delivers presents. Another: the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn. Another: Donald Trump is a decent man.
Do you notice what all these have in common?
There
is a scientific interest... and there
are theories which can
overlap into the Intelligent design
direction. Intelligent design can consist of a variety of theories, other than the biological (Behe's theory which is often debated ).
There is the curiousity to further expand and inquire concepts like: the Computer Universe
Theory, Digital Physics
Theory and Information
Theory which are all part of the big progress. (Unfortunately your santa analogy is shyly feeling out of place here. You could however use the santa analogy to example the pink-unicorn)
Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?
Yes, I used the hypothesis term....but Intelligent design is known as a theory anyway?
Intelligent design might be called by some a theory, but it is not a scientific theory, and this was confirmed in court by a Christian judge in Kitzmiller vs Dover.
Even by 'some', that is enough for it to be a theory. Not everyone is going to agree I know. Besides, regarding your mention of scientific theory, All theories including science are under the umbrella of
philosopy!
Speaking of philosophy. Peter Kosso a
philosopher of science understands well what theories mean, he explains ID better.
ID is a theory of design detection, and it proposes intelligent agency as a mechanism causing biological change. ID allows us to explain how aspects of observed biological complexity, and other natural complexity, arose. And it uses the scientific method to make its claims.
(That is not a religious perpsective)
Kitzmiller vs Dover. of 2005 is a jurisdiction, in a manner of speaking, regarding US public schools from what I gather, it is not in the rest of the world!
I suppose if ID is actually defined as a religion, and those people who are said to be deviously trying to sneak creationism into public schools under the guise of Intelligent Design (perhaps not the ID defined as Peter Kosso) you would ask then. Wouldn't it have been better to just say it is a religion so that it would be taught in religious study/classes anyway?
)
) and ask: