“Your problem is you're assuming faith and science are mutually exclusive.”
No, not assuming, but concluding. The definition of science is that it’s naturalistic. Sciencce doesn’t accept anything without evidence.
The nature of faith is woo. Unrepeatable observations. Non falsifiable.
“I am a science nut and I beleive in ID. I believe evidince supports ID.”
You’re a nut, alright. The BEST you can say is that you’re pretty sure some of the questions ToE answers are not really answered, but the leatp to magic space engineer is not supportable in science.
“Really most of the "evidence" displayed by both sides can just go either way.”
Yes. There’s the entire body of science that supports evolution, and there are those parts of the evidence that don’t disprove ID, and thus are acceptable.
But it’s not just ‘a matter of how you look at it.’
"Science is not objective and evidence will be used to support whatever you're trying to prove whether is really does or not.”
Thus the entire point of the blood-in-the-water process of peer review. Any weakness is savaged.
"Keep in mind that science "proved" that maggots are made of rotting meat,”
Did science ‘prove’ that or was it just something everyone knew? Citations, please.
"radiation water is good for you,”
I do remember when Rickover drank a bottle of reactor coolant, but that is not the same as an objective scientific experiment.
"and "global warming" would raise the water levels"
This is why Florida makes it illegal to use predictions of global warming in evaluating the values of beachfront property? Because there’s no danger of it rising?
