In response to Kevin’s comment on my previous post, I have three points.

I must have miscommunicated my analogy if anyone got the idea that I was saying that “intelligent design” has the same goals as science. ID is a car, science is a house. Any similarities between ID and science are deliberately inserted and magnified (dishonestly) in order to advance a political goal, not advance our understanding of the world. See the “wedge document” from the Discovery Institute for details on that particular subterfuge.

Any “flaws” in our current understanding of the world will be corrected by application of… the scientific process, logic and rationality. That’s the single best method of advancing our understanding; indeed, it’s the only thing that works to date. Unlike, say, fundamentalist religious beliefs, which remain exactly the same, stubbornly resisting centuries of being proven wrong, non-predictive, and even detrimental in the face of new evidence.

Science is the filter that separates out what actually works and best describes all the data available, from the infinity of things a human mind is capable of believing but which are wrong, non-predictive and even detrimental. Science is not strictly a “majority rules” situation.

Thanks for helping me clarify my message.