Fair enough. I’m talking about the two options regarding the nature of reality and the choices that intelligent individuals (as opposed to “science”) have about how they will respond.
You and I are intelligent individuals who have the capacity to draw our own conclusions about the matter. “Science” is agnostic on the matter.
Yes, I do. That’s what I meant by hand in hand – they go together but they are not the same thing.
And you are a jury of one. Testimony is evidence, if it is true. I have much evidence, including the testimony of events in my own life, highly improbable events and meaningful series of improbable events, not just an occasional ‘coincidence’ that I choose to interpret as evidence of the hand of my Father.
I would argue that every event is highly improbable, but that leads us down long and off-topic rabbit hole.
Not really, I think. Biological and cosmlogical evolution (not to mention atheistic meteorology 
) are rabbit holes, then, and we’re just lucky observers. (‘Luck’ is also not in my working vocabulary.)
This could be another discussion, but I’ll mention here, just as food for thought:
There is a difference between a set of circumstances that is improbable, and a set of circumstances that is improbable and also performs a function.
The highly improbable set of circumstances regarding the diameter of the moon and the distance between Earth and the sun performs the function of allowing inquisitive, intelligent beings on the earth to observe features of the universe that would be otherwise unobservable.
Good distinction.
As about half of Christians are Catholics, I find that claim to be highly suspect. Moreover, the interpretation of Genesis requiring the denial of so much of biology is very new.
Why, thanks! That’s mighty big of you.
I do believe in that concept and I still find it nonsensical and frankly, dishonest (I am not accusing you of initiating the dishonesty, just spreading the dishonesty uncritically).
You appear to be using a No True Scotsman fallacy to deflect my question, which was entirely on point.
Again, since you clearly understand that the business of science is testing hypotheses, why are you selling the deceptive ID framing of science as stopping with mere inferences (the allowable scope of which is controlled by unspecified people and unspecified mechanisms)?
If I’m playing poker, what’s the difference between a flush that I fold with and an identical flush that performs the function of winning me a bunch of money?
Aren’t both equally improbable?
You say ‘po-tay-to’, I say ‘po-tah-to’. You say ‘function’ when I think you really mean ‘purpose’…
Speaking of purpose, let’s page Professor Pangloss…
Yet your belief prevents you from having the delightful curiosity I have in understanding how they came to be. I would say that I have an extra delight that for you, creates fear and denial.
I’m not selling anything, John. I’m also not trying to be “big.” I’m trying to stay on the subject of the OP and do so peaceably.
Isn’t the difference between the two determined by what you choose to do with it?
But what the inferred designer (and manufacturer) does is well within the boundary and hypotheses regarding His actions are readily testable, yet IDCreationists neither advance nor test them in favor of endless whining about nonexistent cabals preventing them from doing such important work.
It really only makes sense as a scam.
It makes zero difference in how I would study its genesis, though.
Isn’t the point of evolution, frequently and deceptively omitted by IDCreationist rants about randomness, what selection and fixation do with the raw material of genetic variation?
If you think I “really mean” something other that what I specifically wrote, then you could ask.
Are we in agreement, then, that individuals have freedom to choose the conclusions they draw?
Because saying stuff isn’t science. One has to test one’s inferences, and no one in the ID movement has the courage or integrity to do so.
The fundamental fraud being perpetrated is that science is just inferences and debates over them.
Really?
I am.
Are we in agreement that scientists test those conclusions empirically, while ID pseudoscientists don’t?
John, I’m willing to peaceably coexist with people who hold a different view than me, including you. Call me whatever you will if you choose to. If someone else wants to respond to your question here, fine. I’m not. It doesn’t address the specific question raised in the OP and clarified above in comment #122. (Sorry - I don’t know how to link to a specific comment.)
It depends on what conclusions you’re referring to. The question would have to be answered on a case-by-case basis.