The Triangle

Is this a joke?

You used Big Bang as an example of why ID is part of science, and you attempted to justify an Intelligent Designer using scientific (materialistic) principles. Of course this is ridiculous because there is no sign of an designer capable of creating the Big Bang or anything else. It requires evoking powers that have not been detected and that cannot to extrapolated using existing scientific knowledge.
Then at the end you attempted to claim that studying 'what happened in the past' is a "forensic science", "not a natural science". This is ridiculous on so many levels. First, forensic sciences ARE natural. They only evoke materialistic explanations. What ever Intelligence might be behind an act, it is certain to be materialistic (ie. NOT God). Second, since speed of light is limited, all observations we perform are actually done by looking at the past. There is no 'real time' when you really get down to it. We can only observe "what happened some time ago". If you take the approach that Big Bang is not "a real science" and ID argument is based on postulating the beginning of the Big Bang, then ID still wouldn't get taught in science class or much less considered as real science due to its reliance on the Big Bang. And it is not anyways because the very proposition of an ID is purely philosophical and therefore not for science, not even "forensic sciences".

Mr. Mulgrew's analysis is right on point, and his article is worthy of careful consideration. Objective science simply lets evidence lead the inquiry, and does not shy away from certain inferences because of the implications. Mr. Mulgrew develops this idea very nicely by showing the hypocracy of implication-driven science--some hypotheses are OK, others are not.

Good job, Mr. Mulgrew. This is exactly the kind of reasoned discourse that can move this important debate forward in a constructive manner.

Roddy Bullock, Executive Director, Intelligent Design Network of Ohio

I found the article be kind of scattered and inconclusive. Seems like you might some okay points hidden under the hood but maybe you should try unifying them and building a stronger argument. Also, try not to attack your opponent. This article was about trying to show your viewpoint not attack the other side. I feel in a lot of ways like this has caused you to commit an inductive fallacy.

I just find it funny that in the first paragraph he states that I.D. doesn't need to answer the question of who designed the designer and then on the second page he uses the law of causality saying "everything that has a beginning had a cause." I.E. we have to apply this rule to scientific data but not to I.D.

It is these kind of hypocracies that I.D. is filled with.