Should teaching science in schools be banned in favor of religion?

[Emsworth]

Yes, there is evidence for GRAVITY and things like that, but scientific inquiry into the origins of the universe are all speculative.

There is plenty of evidence to support the Big Bang Theory. The observation that distant astronomical objects are redshifted and the presence of background radiation in the Cosmos are perhaps the most important examples.

[Hitchabrut]

It isn't trollish. Its actually happening in Kansas.

There's more than one way to point something out. This thread is a trollish one.

[Giant Saguaro]

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

Bullsh**t, the physical laws have massive experimental evidence.

Overall, bullsh*t. Yes, there is evidence for GRAVITY and things like that, but scientific inquiry into the origins of the universe are all speculative. Your experimental evidence is mathematics equations that explain how things *could have* happened.

There are certain fundamental laws that have held up to rigorous experimental testing (the only question is what happens at very high energies like 1 nanosecond after big bang). You use the math for calculations assuming these laws. You clearly have no understanding of theoretical physics.

And the laws and the math change frequently with a lot of discussion and disagreement, that's what I'm telling you. Stephen Hawking has gone on and on and on about this - this stuff doesn't mean there wasn't a creator, it just might give some indications as to when the creator did what he did.  And you can't test what happens one nanosecond after the big bang, to use your example. This is a bit of a red herring, Fern.

[Giant Saguaro]

I think another problem evolutionists run into in explaining developmental evolution is where the 'missing links' are - indeed there should be quite a bit evident links to lesser life forms. There aren't, so it's just speculation that leans pretty close to philosophy too.

Science is an evolving field. Every theory will have its missing links. Classical mechanics, too, had its missing links, until they were filled in by Einstein. Does that mean that classical mechanics is unscientific?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Evolution is based on actual evidence, and is testable through genetics. One reasonable prediction of evolution would be that there is a genetic  similarity between certain lifeforms. This prediction can most certainly be tested.

There is no similar evidence to support ID. ID does not make any testable predictions.

They have no idea if and especially when the universe will collapse back in on itself, btw. They can't really say that it will. Background radiation just makes it hard to imagine a static universe, which for years and years good scientists thought was the case - a static universe. This gets into the nature of time and now we're into philosophy.

Developmental evolution is still hard to imagine because when new life forms appear they appear suddenly and what corresponds to fully developed, genetically similar or not.

We also can't test where the universe came from. Perhaps someday when/if we can make planets, we'll find out and we can call it testable.

ID is new, evolution is not. Indeed, science is an evolving field. Developmental evolution has had a lot of time to be thought out and there is as much evidence, if not more, against it as for it. It's had its time, I say it's time to broaden the scope a bit.

Been a good debate guys, but I got to go. It's Friday and all I'm going to head out in a bit.

[Emsworth]

They have no idea if and especially when the universe will collapse back in on itself, btw. They can't really say that it will.

Yes: I never asserted otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is only valid if you agree with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not. I never said that every aspect of a valid scientific theory has to be testable. However, the theory's predictions must be testable. The Big Bang theory's prediction of an expanding universe is certainly testable, and has in fact been proven.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like what?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

Bullsh**t, the physical laws have massive experimental evidence.

Overall, bullsh*t. Yes, there is evidence for GRAVITY and things like that, but scientific inquiry into the origins of the universe are all speculative. Your experimental evidence is mathematics equations that explain how things *could have* happened.

There are certain fundamental laws that have held up to rigorous experimental testing (the only question is what happens at very high energies like 1 nanosecond after big bang). You use the math for calculations assuming these laws. You clearly have no understanding of theoretical physics.

And the laws and the math change frequently with a lot of discussion and disagreement, that's what I'm telling you. Stephen Hawking has gone on and on and on about this - this stuff doesn't mean there wasn't a creator, it just might give some indications as to when the creator did what he did.  And you can't test what happens one nanosecond after the big bang, to use your example. This is a bit of a red herring, Fern.

There aren't many disagreements in most areas of physics.

[afleitch]

No no and No. America is in danger of becoming an intellectual backwater.

[Giant Saguaro]

They have no idea if and especially when the universe will collapse back in on itself, btw. They can't really say that it will.

Yes: I never asserted otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is only valid if you agree with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not. I never said that every aspect of a valid scientific theory has to be testable. However, the theory's predictions must be testable. The Big Bang theory's prediction of an expanding universe is certainly testable, and has in fact been proven.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like what?

In regard to evolution, just that small scale evolution seems to have a lot of support and evidence, unlike larger scale evolution. Large scale evolution is where things get real shaky. There's a lot of skepticism about that even in Darwinian communities.

Actually, I gave a once-over look to some proposed ID curricula and I'm a bit surprised - it seems to lend itself less to religion than I thought. Obviously there are competing curricula in states and districts, but what I came across was invested in questioning the assumption or the idea that by chance we found ourselves in this universe and on planet Earth and it all just sort of computes. It just runs along. I don't think it's counterproductive or non scientific at all to question that notion. It's been kind of taken for granted since Darwin by so many people, so in that case ID seems to be testable to some degree, likely using probability theory to name one thing, which is a science. Specific criteria would need to be agreed upon and then we examine how likely events are to have just simply happened. That seems to lend itself to testability, actually.

I've also read something on one of the curricula pages that argued that using Darwin's testing methods one could argue ID is testable. Like the above - look for evidence that suggests it didn't 'just all happen' where Darwin looked for evidence that suggested it did 'just happen.'

[Emsworth]

Obviously there are competing curricula in states and districts, but what I came across was invested in questioning the assumption or the idea that by chance we found ourselves in this universe and on planet Earth and it all just sort of computes. It just runs along. I don't think it's counterproductive or non scientific at all to question that notion. It's been kind of taken for granted since Darwin by so many people, so in that case ID seems to be testable to some degree, likely using probability theory to name one thing, which is a science. Specific criteria would need to be agreed upon and then we examine how likely events are to have just simply happened. That seems to lend itself to testability, actually.

Again, as I said before, "testability" is not what you suggest it is. The theory itself is not what I am concerned about testing. It is the predictions made by the theory that should be testable. The theory of evolution predicts the presence of fossils of animals no longer in existence, a genetic similarity between different species, and so forth. These can be tested. The theory of relativity predicts the gravitational redshift of light. This can be tested. The theory of the Big Bang predicts that the light from distant galaxies will be redshifted. This can be tested. And so on.

The ID theory, however, makes no such testable prediction. It is not based on any actual evidence. It is no more than blind conjecture. It has as much scientific credibility, in my opinion, as the suggestion that the first humans spontaneously oozed out of the ground.

[Giant Saguaro]

Obviously there are competing curricula in states and districts, but what I came across was invested in questioning the assumption or the idea that by chance we found ourselves in this universe and on planet Earth and it all just sort of computes. It just runs along. I don't think it's counterproductive or non scientific at all to question that notion. It's been kind of taken for granted since Darwin by so many people, so in that case ID seems to be testable to some degree, likely using probability theory to name one thing, which is a science. Specific criteria would need to be agreed upon and then we examine how likely events are to have just simply happened. That seems to lend itself to testability, actually.

Again, as I said before, "testability" is not what you suggest it is. The theory itself is not what I am concerned about testing. It is the predictions made by the theory that should be testable. The theory of evolution predicts the presence of fossils of animals no longer in existence, a genetic similarity between different species, and so forth. These can be tested. The theory of relativity predicts the gravitational redshift of light. This can be tested. The theory of the Big Bang predicts that the light from distant galaxies will be redshifted. This can be tested. And so on.

The ID theory, however, makes no such testable prediction. It is not based on any actual evidence. It is no more than blind conjecture. It has as much scientific credibility, in my opinion, as the suggestion that the first humans spontaneously oozed out of the ground.

But the more level-headed ID theories and curricula seem built around challenging the idea that everything just happened. It's a challenge to Darwinism that's often taken for granted. ID should predict the presence of evidence that suggests we haven't found ourselves in all of this by chance - they are only really starting to look for that evidence and of course it, like science itself, is debatable. I imagine that's where probability could factor in. It's like the idea that everything is a little too perfect to just compute - we could find mountains of evidence out there to argue that.

I feel it's debate worth having and it's an idea worth entertaining.

[Emsworth]

ID should predict the presence of evidence that suggests we haven't found ourselves in all of this by chance...

So far, no ID theory has made any such prediction. No ID theory has provided any concrete evidence or proof of its correctness. Therefore, it should not be taught as "science." At this point, it is pure conjecture, far inferior in scientific merit to the theory of evolution by natural selection.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Jfern might tell you, this is unrelated to probability or statistics. How would you measure the probability of an intelligent designer existing? One would have to merely make a completely arbitrary pronouncement.

[Giant Saguaro]

ID should predict the presence of evidence that suggests we haven't found ourselves in all of this by chance...

So far, no ID theory has made any such prediction. No ID theory has provided any concrete evidence or proof of its correctness. Therefore, it should not be taught as "science." At this point, it is pure conjecture, far inferior in scientific merit to the theory of evolution by natural selection.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Jfern might tell you, this is unrelated to probability or statistics. How would you measure the probability of an intelligent designer existing? One would have to merely make a completely arbitrary pronouncement.

I think you could make a probability statement based on how likely life is to just spring up somewhere. Again, they have to flush it out and many folks are dismissing it entirely too soon.

If ID has not made any such prediction(s) to everyone's satisfaction it's because it's really just now being developed and the curricula are in the beginning stages. It will be revised as it goes along, like evolution. Books like 'The Science of God,' for ex., are just beginning to posture some of the evidence.

I don't think ID so far is vastly inferior to evolution by natural selection at all. Again, we can't even explain the lack of missing links to any degree of satisfaction, so overall evolution by natural selection is severely lacking.

Haha - I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine, I don't think.

[Emsworth]

I think you could make a probability statement based on how likely life is to just spring up somewhere.

Ah, there's a catch. If it is improbable that life just sprang up on Earth, then why is it not equally improbable that the intelligent designer just sprang up elsewhere?

In any event, I fear (with all due respect, of course) that you are mixing apples and oranges. The theory of evolution does not explain how "life is to just spring up somewhere." It has nothing to do with the origin of life, but with how it has changed over time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When (and if) it is developed, and shown to be a viable theory, then, perhaps, we may consider it science. But until then, it is nothing more than blind conjecture.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Severely" is a great overstatement. ID is even more lacking, by far.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll have to agree there !

[opebo]

Pnkrocket has as usual captured the feelings of the grass roots of the Religious Party to a T.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

ID's main problem is that it's not a scientific theory and has no experimental evidence, and instead is just a way to try to attack evolution without sounding like the crazy fundamentalist creationist that you are.

ID's 2nd largest problem is, OK, let's ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution can incrementally evolve complicated things, and instead buy into this bogus irreducible complexity, which they claim requires an intelligent creator. My only question here is, who created the intelligent creator?

[Giant Saguaro]

ID's main problem is that it's not a scientific theory and has no experimental evidence, and instead is just a way to try to attack evolution without sounding like the crazy fundamentalist creationist that you are.

ID's 2nd largest problem is, OK, let's ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution can incrementally evolve complicated things, and instead buy into this bogus irreducible complexity, which they claim requires an intelligent creator. My only question here is, who created the intelligent creator?

Uh-oh. That comment leveled at me? Appears so.

First, it's irrelevant who created the creator, that's not what ID is about. It is about questioning the shortcomings of evolution. The BIG problems of evolution include that it has been a serious scientific inquiry since the 1850s and it can only present to us fossils, which don't answer all the questions and which don't even prove evolution, and some evidence that supports small scale evolution. It can't account for large scale evolution whatsoever, the missing link bit, and is still largely confecture that fits observations. I personally refuse to accept that by accident I found myself in all of this, like a lot of people.

Now. I have a growing intolerance for people who express open disdain and disrespect for people who have different views. When you grow up, Fern, you hopefully will discover that in dealing with human beings you will be enterting into conversations and having discussions with people who have very different views and backgrounds than you (unless you just sit angrily in front of the computer for the rest of your life). So you better just start dealing with it, because I'm not only in the majority but it appears that ID is a growing trend. Want to talk to people about it? Figure out how you want to approach a conversation with someone with whom you disagree completely. There are a lot of people whose minds you won't change. It's hard to believe that you are a grad student - then again it's pretty easy to act like a brain cell deficient trash talking idiot in a message board in the middle of cycberspace, isn't it? I imagine you could be a real bane to education. And furthermore, if you want to go in the name-calling direction with me, I've been there and done that in more up-close-and personal environments than a message board, and if you want to do that, I'll dust you off.

[Emsworth]

It can't account for large scale evolution whatsoever, the missing link bit, and is still largely confecture that fits observations.

As I said earlier, the conjecture in evolution is comparatively minimal. Sure, there is some conjecture, but it is based on observations, and involves testable predictions.

ID is pure conjecture. It is as much conjecture as the notion that the first humans oozed out of the ground, that they fell from the sky, or that they spontaneously appeared from nowhere. All of these ideas, as well as ID, are nothing but conjecture, whereas evolution is a scientific theory, backed by evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would agree that this need not descend to name-calling.

[TeePee4Prez]

HELL NO!!!!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

ID's main problem is that it's not a scientific theory and has no experimental evidence, and instead is just a way to try to attack evolution without sounding like the crazy fundamentalist creationist that you are.

ID's 2nd largest problem is, OK, let's ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution can incrementally evolve complicated things, and instead buy into this bogus irreducible complexity, which they claim requires an intelligent creator. My only question here is, who created the intelligent creator?

Uh-oh. That comment leveled at me? Appears so.

First, it's irrelevant who created the creator, that's not what ID is about. It is about questioning the shortcomings of evolution. The BIG problems of evolution include that it has been a serious scientific inquiry since the 1850s and it can only present to us fossils, which don't answer all the questions and which don't even prove evolution, and some evidence that supports small scale evolution. It can't account for large scale evolution whatsoever, the missing link bit, and is still largely confecture that fits observations. I personally refuse to accept that by accident I found myself in all of this, like a lot of people.

Now. I have a growing intolerance for people who express open disdain and disrespect for people who have different views. When you grow up, Fern, you hopefully will discover that in dealing with human beings you will be enterting into conversations and having discussions with people who have very different views and backgrounds than you (unless you just sit angrily in front of the computer for the rest of your life). So you better just start dealing with it, because I'm not only in the majority but it appears that ID is a growing trend. Want to talk to people about it? Figure out how you want to approach a conversation with someone with whom you disagree completely. There are a lot of people whose minds you won't change. It's hard to believe that you are a grad student - then again it's pretty easy to act like a brain cell deficient trash talking idiot in a message board in the middle of cycberspace, isn't it? I imagine you could be a real bane to education. And furthermore, if you want to go in the name-calling direction with me, I've been there and done that in more up-close-and personal environments than a message board, and if you want to do that, I'll dust you off.

Gee, forgive me for not liking rabid creationists who are out to destroy science. Funny how you complain about the insults, and then whip out a bunch of them. Face it, you lost, Physics is a science, only you wingnuts think otherwise.

I'm guessing you're a member of the 94%-correlation-is-never-statistically-significant club? I as a member of the reality based community don't hold back on calling the bullsh**t spouted from you members of the faith based fantasy community.

[Giant Saguaro]

ID's main problem is that it's not a scientific theory and has no experimental evidence, and instead is just a way to try to attack evolution without sounding like the crazy fundamentalist creationist that you are.

ID's 2nd largest problem is, OK, let's ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution can incrementally evolve complicated things, and instead buy into this bogus irreducible complexity, which they claim requires an intelligent creator. My only question here is, who created the intelligent creator?

Uh-oh. That comment leveled at me? Appears so.

First, it's irrelevant who created the creator, that's not what ID is about. It is about questioning the shortcomings of evolution. The BIG problems of evolution include that it has been a serious scientific inquiry since the 1850s and it can only present to us fossils, which don't answer all the questions and which don't even prove evolution, and some evidence that supports small scale evolution. It can't account for large scale evolution whatsoever, the missing link bit, and is still largely confecture that fits observations. I personally refuse to accept that by accident I found myself in all of this, like a lot of people.

Now. I have a growing intolerance for people who express open disdain and disrespect for people who have different views. When you grow up, Fern, you hopefully will discover that in dealing with human beings you will be enterting into conversations and having discussions with people who have very different views and backgrounds than you (unless you just sit angrily in front of the computer for the rest of your life). So you better just start dealing with it, because I'm not only in the majority but it appears that ID is a growing trend. Want to talk to people about it? Figure out how you want to approach a conversation with someone with whom you disagree completely. There are a lot of people whose minds you won't change. It's hard to believe that you are a grad student - then again it's pretty easy to act like a brain cell deficient trash talking idiot in a message board in the middle of cycberspace, isn't it? I imagine you could be a real bane to education. And furthermore, if you want to go in the name-calling direction with me, I've been there and done that in more up-close-and personal environments than a message board, and if you want to do that, I'll dust you off.

Gee, forgive me for not liking rabid creationists who are out to destroy science. Funny how you complain about the insults, and then whip out a bunch of them. Face it, you lost, Physics is a science, only you wingnuts think otherwise.

I'm guessing you're a member of the 94%-correlation-is-never-statistically-significant club? I as a member of the reality based community don't hold back on calling the bullsh**t spouted from you members of the faith based fantasy community.

As to what I said - if you want to do insults, we can do that. That's all. Now, what kind of hard drug are you on anyway? OF COURSE physics is still science, no one has said otherwise. I was merely pointing out that there is conjecture in all science.

Wrong on global warming and another ad hominem attack - I believe there is evidence for global warming and I believe at some level human beings may be responsible for it. I don't know how or to what degree or whether it's part of a trend or not and neither do you. You are good at throwing in red herrings, Fern, and this is another.

Faith based wingnut group - that's good. And you're the one displaying crosses and such in your signature? Oh right, because they fit the current agenda. An ad hominem act again if there ever was one - a person who supports ID must be a religious wingnut. Try again.

ID is a science as it predicts evidence that suggests we did not find ourselves in the universe by chance. It is testable from a couple avenues.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

I'm also looking for a chapter from a guy's PhD dissertation in biology, I believe. I'll tack it on if I can find it later.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

ID's main problem is that it's not a scientific theory and has no experimental evidence, and instead is just a way to try to attack evolution without sounding like the crazy fundamentalist creationist that you are.

ID's 2nd largest problem is, OK, let's ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution can incrementally evolve complicated things, and instead buy into this bogus irreducible complexity, which they claim requires an intelligent creator. My only question here is, who created the intelligent creator?

Uh-oh. That comment leveled at me? Appears so.

First, it's irrelevant who created the creator, that's not what ID is about. It is about questioning the shortcomings of evolution. The BIG problems of evolution include that it has been a serious scientific inquiry since the 1850s and it can only present to us fossils, which don't answer all the questions and which don't even prove evolution, and some evidence that supports small scale evolution. It can't account for large scale evolution whatsoever, the missing link bit, and is still largely confecture that fits observations. I personally refuse to accept that by accident I found myself in all of this, like a lot of people.

Now. I have a growing intolerance for people who express open disdain and disrespect for people who have different views. When you grow up, Fern, you hopefully will discover that in dealing with human beings you will be enterting into conversations and having discussions with people who have very different views and backgrounds than you (unless you just sit angrily in front of the computer for the rest of your life). So you better just start dealing with it, because I'm not only in the majority but it appears that ID is a growing trend. Want to talk to people about it? Figure out how you want to approach a conversation with someone with whom you disagree completely. There are a lot of people whose minds you won't change. It's hard to believe that you are a grad student - then again it's pretty easy to act like a brain cell deficient trash talking idiot in a message board in the middle of cycberspace, isn't it? I imagine you could be a real bane to education. And furthermore, if you want to go in the name-calling direction with me, I've been there and done that in more up-close-and personal environments than a message board, and if you want to do that, I'll dust you off.

Gee, forgive me for not liking rabid creationists who are out to destroy science. Funny how you complain about the insults, and then whip out a bunch of them. Face it, you lost, Physics is a science, only you wingnuts think otherwise.

I'm guessing you're a member of the 94%-correlation-is-never-statistically-significant club? I as a member of the reality based community don't hold back on calling the bullsh**t spouted from you members of the faith based fantasy community.

As to what I said - if you want to do insults, we can do that. That's all. Now, what kind of hard drug are you on anyway? OF COURSE physics is still science, no one has said otherwise. I was merely pointing out that there is conjecture in all science.

Wrong on global warming and another ad hominem attack - I believe there is evidence for global warming and I believe at some level human beings may be responsible for it. I don't know how or to what degree or whether it's part of a trend or not and neither do you. You are good at throwing in red herrings, Fern, and this is another.

Faith based wingnut group - that's good. And you're the one displaying crosses and such in your signature? Oh right, because they fit the current agenda. An ad hominem act again if there ever was one - a person who supports ID must be a religious wingnut. Try again.

ID is a science as it predicts evidence that suggests we did not find ourselves in the universe by chance. It is testable from a couple avenues.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

I'm also looking for a chapter from a guy's PhD dissertation in biology, I believe. I'll tack it on if I can find it later.

That's just propaganda, I don't see any actual experiments mentioned. They just claim that bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. However, there have been recent advances in the study of bacterial flagellum, and it appears that evolution has explained it much better now.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/flagellum.cfm

[Gabu]

ID is a science as it predicts evidence that suggests we did not find ourselves in the universe by chance. It is testable from a couple avenues.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

I'm also looking for a chapter from a guy's PhD dissertation in biology, I believe. I'll tack it on if I can find it later.

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to side with jfern on this one, at least from the angle of holding the opinion that intelligent design is not science due to my belief that it is not, in fact, testable.  That article you posted is very long and impressive-sounding, but I did not detect a whole lot of real meat to it, and it seems to be attacking evolution a lot more than promoting intelligent design.

It doesn't do a very good job of presenting both sides of the argument, either, something I consider absolutely crucial for me to consider it an objective article.  While this obviously does not immediately refute anything, it does put doubt in my mind initially regarding its credibility.  It does make the admission that intelligent design predicts nothing, but really, you can't very well make any sort of argument whatsoever that it does.  I will nonetheless give it credit for that, though.  However, I still got the sense that that article displays the age old problem of having a conclusion in mind and then going to look for evidence - a very unscientific approach.

Taken section by section, here's my analysis of what it has to say in its attempt to show that intelligent design is testable:

Falsifiability

Essentially, stripping away everything else, the article appears to be claiming that Occam's Razor can be used to falsify intelligent design.  This is a completely false claim; Occam's Razor is not a scientific theory and is merely a statement about what Occam felt was common sense: that the simplest theory, or in his words, the theory that requires the least amount of assumptions, is most likely to be the correct one.  One should note the presence of the qualifier "most likely" - Occam's Razor says nothing about what is correct, only what is most likely to be correct.  It offers no proof for this claim, which is, of course, perfectly allowable because, it's not supposed to be something scientists use to verify scientific theories.

Quite frankly, I can't see how intelligent design is falsifiable.  Even if you can show that everything in the entire universe can be produced through a series of mutations, that doesn't prove that it was produced in that fashion.  It may well have been created by some intelligent designer even so.  We really can't know (at least at this point in time), and it's debatable if we can ever know for sure.

The rest of this section is committing one gigantic burden of proof fallacy by making numerous attacks on evolution and those who believe in evolution, ignoring the fact that evolution's merits (or lack thereof) say nothing about intelligent design's merits.

Confirmation

Here's this section in a nutshell:

Blah, blah, blah, Contact, SETI, blah, blah, complexity, intelligent-sounding names.

I'm being facetious, of course, but really, this section says both a ton and extremely little at the same time - somewhat of an argumentum ad vis (argument by quantity), if you will.  The only actual important bit that it offers is the idea that finding something irreducably complex would be confirmation of intelligent design.  What it doesn't mention is whether it's possible to conclusively prove whether or not something is irreducably complex.  In the section on falsifiability, he states that evolution is not falsifiable because it's impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is irreducably complex.  Then, in this section, he merrily asserts that finding something irreducably complex will confirm intelligent design.

Unfortunately for the writer, this is a blatant contradiction, and, sadly, he can't have his cake and eat it too.  Either evolution is unfalsifiable, or intelligent design is not confirmable.  He has quite effectively shot himself in the foot without even batting an eyelash.  Asserting these two mutually exclusive ideas to both be true seriously damages his ability to appear to have written a completely objective article.

Regarding which one of the two is true, I personally currently feel that intelligent design is not confirmable, barring the chance of actually finding the creator and having him give you a demonstration.  I say this not simply because I want it to be true, but because I can't see how it's otherwise possible to prove a biological construct to be irreducably complex.  It seems to me that it could very well be the case that we simply don't understand the evolutionary steps that led to the construct.

I will concede that this does imply that evolution is not falsifiable, which is certainly an argument against evolution as a scientific theory, but I am not going to fall into the trap that the writer of this article fell into so many times of considering an argument against evolution to be an argument in favor of intelligent design.  It's not.  The truthfulness of the two theories are entirely detached and unrelated from one another, and his article would be a lot more effective if he purged it of all irrelevant material attempting to disprove evolution.

The rest of this section is essentially a lot of irrelevant mindless chatter that need not be discussed.

Predictability

The article displays multiple paragraphs to essentially just concede the point that intelligent design does not predict anything.  There's no point in attempting to show what it already admits.

Explanatory Power

Yeah, okay, I'll concede this point.  Intelligent design does explain a lot of things if it's true.  I can't really dispute this point.

What I can note, however, is that this quality, while necessary for something to be a scientific theory, is not nearly sufficient for something to be a scientific theory.  Intelligent design is not falsifiable, is not confirmable unless someone can show how you can prove absolutely conclusively that something is irreducably complex, and does not predict anything.  The fact that it would explains things if it were true is, therefore, entirely irrelevant.  All things considered, I maintain that intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

[angus]

Should teaching science in schools be banned in favor of religion?

hey sweetheart, there's something just for you on page 21 of this week's New Yorker (august 22, 2005).  Not to feed the flame, but I do think you'd find it all very amusing.  Bushies:  read this one only when you're in a good mood.

[senatortombstone]

I would have voted yes for science but I decided not to because of how the topic writer falsely defined science in this topic.  ID and creationism are much more scientific than evolution.  Evolution has been called, by evolutionists, a "fairytale for grown ups.”  So, yes, I think schools should teach scientific theories like creation or ID instead of religious ones like evolution.  You can teach evolution in a philosophy or comparative religions class, but please do not mix your religion with science anymore.

Evolution and all the theories accompanying it (like the big bang) are not scientific.

If the big bang actually happened, then that means that all matter in the universe was once hydrogen or helium.  Explain to me the evolutionary process from hydrogen to human?

The odds against the universe assembling itself out of an explosion are in insurmountable.  A centillion years would not be enough.

It is impossible for even the "simplest" of a lifeform to assemble itself out of inorganic matter.  Even when given the most generous assumptions for a primordial earth, the odds of that happening are much greater than 1 in the number of pica-seconds that have passed since the alleged big bang.

Take this into consideration.  Today evolutionists witness the "changes" in microscopic bacteria that can reproduce several millions of times in a single year.  Yet, even after millions of generations these bacteria are still the same bacteria they were a hundred million generations ago.  If a "simple" bacterium is still a bacterium after millions of generations.  How do ape-like primates evolve into humans in only about 200,000 generations?

As I said before, if evolution were true and really happened, we wouldn't exist today.  There simple hasn't been enough time, under evolutionary guidelines, for humans to evolve in only 3 billion years.

And the so-called evidences for evolution are not so.

Radiometric dating doesn't work.  Only dates compliant with the evolutionary theory are accepted.  All other ones are thrown out.

Carbon-14 dating doesn't work.  Coal, oil, and diamonds whenever tested, reveal traceable amounts of C-14.  Even dinosaur bones, when found unfossilized, date between 9,000-30,000 years old, not 65 million or more.


All the evidence, scientific, biological, geological, historical, archeological points to a recent creation, not billions of years of random chance.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that some people want to live lives in rebellion against God, so they come up with all sorts of crazy and zany theories to explain away God's direct role in their existence.  God has given us all the free will to do that, but we will all be judged.

So mock me all you like (that is all evolutionists can do, because all of their arguments are scientifically invalid) write smart-assed letters to the liberal, God-hating editors of you local newspapers, and post more God-hating rhetoric on web-forums like this one, but remember this:
There is no escaping the judgment and if you deny God for evolution, you will be judged a fool very harshly.

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin!

[John Dibble]

Oh boy, the creationist senatortombstone is back. I don't think I'll bother arguing about it this time, though I'm curious as to how creationism is somehow scientific.