Many thanks and that was a truly excellent post, thanks for that. It has been 25 years since I dealt with chemistry in any sort of meaningful way so your cogent delineation was very helpful. Go All Blacks!
Thanks for the rep and I edited my error. Lately I have had a lot of outliers on the upside and that always scares me. It is easy to forget about looking for your errors in good times or otherwise get undisciplined.
Ohh suuuuuuure you weren't. I know you were trying to be clear and it's good you did. Best to know what the hell you're saying when you believe. I looked back and said, well hell! I'm not a believer in the federalist party, but I do believe in federalism as Ive found the definition. So it's copacetic.
Thanks friend. My argument for ID is areligious, yes, though my personal beliefs are not. My goal re ID is to get the religious to stop being fanatical and inappropriate in trying to get Creationism into the Science curriculum and to stop the anti-religious from disallowing appropriate reason and logic to exist there. In my opinion is it never appropriate to teach I.D. as science, but it is appropriate to acknowledge the concept as one explanation for things when science is insufficient to do so. We don't have to teach I.D. as science but we dont' have to destroy the faith of children in order to teach science either.