User talk:Rcread

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a  fist  02:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Moved from Talk:Intelligent design
This is an admittedly uncited, hence original research, commentary. I am not sure why you put this on the Intelligent design talk page. Please try to make concise, useful suggestions for improving the article. I have moved this here for your reference so you can hopefully find a cite for whatever it was you were trying to say. Thanks much!

Scientific method rejects supernatural?
One of the central points of defenders of ID is that science has a bias against supernatural forces or explanations. But this is false. Supernatural forces are, as far as science is concerned, in the realm of the unknown and unknowable.

The scientific method attempts to find natural causes for events, but that is not the same as denying or presupposing the nonexistence of supernatural forces. If there are events that have a supernatural origin, then, by definition, science will never explain them. The burden for proponents of ID is to find even a single event that they can prove could never be explained by science, and further, that it is supernatural, rather than merely unknown or unknowable.

Few if any scientists would claim that science has disproved, ever could disprove, or has the aim of disproving the existence of supernatural forces or a supernatural origin for the universe. Many scientists may not believe in supernatural forces, but that doesn't mean they think that science can, or has disproved them.

But, neither would they say that the biblical account of creation is in agreement with, or has explained, in even the smallest part, the million bits of data that have been successfully explained by the theories of evolution and natural selection. There is a big difference between the concept of a supernatural force playing some role in creation, and the very falsifiable account of creation in Genesis.

These are fundamental points that are currently not clearly stated in the article. Sorry, no citations.