that's exactly it, i think.  it's a paradigm difference.  some people see creationism as morally and factually wrong because of their PARADIGM, and others see it as morally and factually right because of THEIR paradigm.  and they're throwing falsifiability and bias and everything else at each other ... but when it comes down to it, it's a PARADIGM difference.  At the same time, however, one, the other, or something else IS factually true.  And so what SCIENCE needs to do is keep as BROAD a paradigm as possible in allowing itself to go through the process of falsification.  A scientific community that ASSUMES Genesis is true will be limited in its ability to falsify itself ... because it will always say, "well ... we just haven't figuredn out how to justify that assumption yet  but we will!"  Similarly, a scientific community that ASSUMES God does not exist will say the same thing.  I think what science needs to do is take a position of NEUTRALITY regarding the hypotheses of a creator  and allow falsification to take its course.

 where this leads me is this.  the falsifiable assertions of evolution are: "Evolution is false where there are clear and distinct boundaries between "kinds," across which macroevolution cannot occur" and "evolution is false where life, by its very nature, can never arise from non-life."  In my opinion, IF the theory is falsified in that way, ID becomes the "improved theory"  because it takes ALL the contemporary evidence that is explained by evolution, AND explains abiogenesis and macroevolution  making it that new path integral formulation to F=ma.

However, ID requires the PARADIGM shift that there IS a creator.

 not trying to convince you ... just trying to articulate the ID POV for page development  do you have a corresponding evo pov or a critique of this one?   20:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)