Is a Concept of a Designer unscientific?

Everyone's replies so far have really done a great job.I think yours is good as well mike, even if I think you are wrong.Science is philosophy. It began as the branch known as natural philosophy. It was heavily influences by empiricists and gradually separated itself (I assume because it was more "hands on" and specified) into what we now call science.Philosophy will not help investigate or give credence to God any more or less than Science. Perhaps the one thing it can do is admit the possibility as a hypothetical, where science will not until there is a reason to. But that does not really add to a belief in Gods.Indeed, how would philosophy begin to make heads or tails over which mythological entities were most likely involved? As it is the study of knowledge it can't, other than to point out in which way they all could exist as theoretical possibilities.While I think your post was well written, instead of philosophy it should have been talking about faith as the counter to science.Science develops models of the truth through factual evidence, philosophy examines the logical relationship between fact and truth (including possible truths not yet approachable by science), while faith develops those alternate models of truth. Thus philosophy is a tool of both, but the two studies are science of the natural and faith of the supernatural (or unknowable). The evidence of a Big Bang is all that needs to be studied and various studies of that evidence repeated (to the same conclusion). No one has to recreate or repeat the BB. I suppose however that it could be recreated using mathematical models once enough knowledge has been gained in cosmology.We of course are nowhere close to that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I noticed this come up with the late IDman and I started to address it with him, your outline is much more comprehensive.I am not sure if you have read much IDtheory but the more I think about it the more I think that this is the real problem. They hinge most of their theory on doubts regarding MN because it allows the "unobservable" as evidence in some cases, but not in theirs.They... such as the OP's author... miss how MN actually uses "observation" and cannot create models using "unobserved" evidence. It's just that unseen does not equal unobserved.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Apparently I didn't make my point clear enough.You are right that people can and do mull over Gods using philosophy. The problem is that people in science are ALSO using philosophy to mull over their models.The difference between the two (science and faith) is not that one is more philosophical than the other, nor that one has Gods and the other does not. The difference between the two are the strict requirements of facts or "evidence" to the building of a model (in science), and the looser requirements to build a model (in faith).Yeah, maybe that's how I should have said it earlier. Science and Faith are different practices regarding beliefs, philosophy is the tool both practices use, and the strictness of evidence to what one can say is knowledge is tighter in one than the other. Indeed, faith may presume evidence and so divides itself from science as being a pursuit of belief rather than explicit knowledge.The irony being what you pointed out... a scientific model based wholly on factual evidence and therefore a strict pursuit of knowledge may end up not modelling the truth. Empirical Knowledge =/= Truth.Hume set that out 100+ years ago, sweet genius that he was. Oh I didn't mean to say that. I was just trying to reinforce the point that Loudmouth had made to Kelly regarding what repeatability meant in science.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)