KeithS: How NOT to argue against "God"
I certainly don't pretend to know what God must do with his powers. I only claim that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then the world he has created must be the best of all possible worlds. This is a logical deduction, and God is subject to logic (e.g. not being able to make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it). You're free to disagree, of course, but most theologians and philosophers do not. This is not an idiosyncratic position.
That is just plain stupidity talking. If "God" is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent then "God" can do as "God" pleases. That is the ONLY logical deduction one can make. I disagree and I would love to hear from ANY theologians and philosophers who feel the opposite.
Ya see I don't know of anyone who said "God's" Creation had to be perfect. And even if it started out that way there isn't anything that says it should remain that way.
Ya see in a "perfect" world we couldn't learn anything. We wouldn't experience anything but the best "God" had to offer.
Why make scientific discoveries in a "perfect" world?
In the same thread KeithS also stated:
If ID ever became a science, and if it actually led to the conclusion that a supernatural designer existed, then sure, I think such a discussion would be appropriate in science class.
I would love to know his definition of science. I will also note that even his position requires something either beyond nature or the metaphysical "the universe 'just is'". IOW EVERYTHING leads to either the metaphysical or to something beyond nature. It can't be avoided.
And THAT is why the debate is NOT "natural vs, supernatural". It is intelligence vs. sheer dumb luck. But just remember those on the side of sheer dumb luck will deny that fact all the way to their grave.
BTW KeithS- Science does NOT care if the designer is "God". That is because science is interested in the reality behind what we are observing.
That is another fact that you cannot change.