I came across this quote today by Richard Dawkins in his book "the blind watchmaker" p. 287
"Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory... we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories."
Read that again
Have we missed the point in trying to argue the scientific facts in intelligent design?
Does the evidence even matter?!
Dawkins gives a resounding NO!
Here is another quote from the magazine "Nature" by S.C. Todd a Kansas State prof (as quoted by Pearcey in Total Truth p.168)
"Even if all the data points to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"
And there it is
It is not the scientific evidence
It is not the facts
It is not science's noble, impartial quest to discocer truth & follow the evidence where ever it leads (does anyone still think that science & scientist are neutral & unbiased anymore?)
It is thier WORLDVIEWS made up ahead of time to automatically exclude anything but the naturalistic interpretation
It is their Philosophical Understanding that gudes thier science
Philosophy of Naturalism
Nature MUST be the force behind everything
It can NEVER be the Supernatural
It can never be GOD
Their philosophy necessarily dictates to them what their conclusions will be beforehand
It is a volitional decision made beforehand
We can argue the FACTS till we are blue in the face
but that will never convince them until we get to the philosophy behind their thinking
until we get to their hearts