Am I wrong here?

Please correct me, please, but if you are going down this path, wouldn't intermediate species be a better example of evolution. Tell them about all the intermediate species they found. Species that have a transitional marker of DNA from, lets say an amphibian and a bird... Didn't they cross an alligator with a platypus? (Of course you know where I am going with this, don't you?)

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

JMS: What happens when a living thing dies? It’s a mystery.

USG: Even to those of us who have faith in the Book that talks all about that mystery. But not all of it has to be mystery.

JMS: Science doesn’t pretend to know things, it only explains what it can [repeat in a lab].

USG: I am with you so far.

JMS: Science doesn’t disprove god, or an afterlife.

USG: A very honest statement.

JMS: Science isn’t dangerous.

USG: I agree.

JMS: Creationism doesn’t need to destroy science to promise an afterlife.

USG: I agree. Many into ID, actually believe that it was all designed that way... (sorry, couldn't resist)

JMS: You can teach your child about god and heaven all you want at home, no one is denying that. just don’t try to tell people that religion and science are the same, its dishonest and it can have serious consequences.

USG: Agreed. But the distinction I would like to make here, is this: Credulity is the belief in something in spite of the facts. Faith is taking 100% with you, based on the convincing fraction you can observe. (Kind of like getting on an airplane now days…) To say that 2+2=4 is the same as “God is the creator of the Universe.”… is dishonest. Because you are talking about two different things.

JMS: Was that fair? Trying to present intelligent design as an opposing theory to evolution? [It] is not fair.

USG: Lets be precise about what’s fair. Fair is equal access. Fair is comparing apples to apples. Fair is giving equal place at the table. Intellectually honest means that I am not afraid of your idea, because my idea is so truthful, that in the end, it will win. And if it doesn't, then we both win. I am smarter, and you are right. The key is to hire teachers that are better educators than manipulators.

JMS: It simply isnt science. as i mentioned before, it poses a question but explains nothing, by scientific standards.

USG: Careful. “It” is getting closer to explaining things. If you walked into a desert, and in the middle of the desert you saw a 747, parked on a sand dune, your first guess would not be “Oh, look what hatched out of an egg!” ID is knocking on the door. And there are a significant number of scientist who are starting to listen.

JMS: Evolution plays by the rules in science, creationism doesn’t.

USG: That’s because “science” sets the rules. If you add just one component to that equation, “God sets the rules.” Suddenly the whole paradigm shifts and plausibility and presuppositions which before said that, “because I can’t grow it in a test tube”, just get tossed out the window. Just a few short years ago, they thought the speed of light was constant…

JMS: You think not allowing the two to be compared on the same level is unfair, i think its unfair to think you can cheat science when others have worked so hard to actually prove their theories were scientifically sound.

USG: Amen.

JMS: In high school there are classes where students can study religion, but these usually involve more than just Christianity. Would the proponents of intelligent design go for that?

USG: Budah… dead; Mohamad… dead; Confusious… dead. Pharoh (King Tut)… dead; I think we can still visit where these people are buried. No problem. Bring em all in, they are all invited.

JMS: letting all sides be presented? in this sense, it actually would be fair because they would all be religions, just like Christianity.

USG: At Dallas Theological Seminary, they teach the tenants of all the world’s religions.

Once again, JMS, you are quite complete in your analysis. Ty

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

i was trying to focus on the benefits of understanding evolution, as you seemed to question its importance. evolution is about adaptation.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/searc...tion&x=33&y=20

natural selection (evolutionary theory) is actually synonymous with adaptation.

"But not all of it has to be mystery."

it doesnt have to be if you have blind faith, but not everyone does.

no disagreement there. science invites scrutiny, it wouldnt be science without it. on the one hand, its very positive to have intelligent design advocates confront evolutionary theory and put it to the test, thats a great thing. the flagellum argument has been proven wrong, for example - it was in the video i posted in the other thread (the response that i think motivated you to start this one). the only problem with the advocates of the intelligent design argument is it isnt based on science, and its proponents seem to want to stifle science, redefine it, destroy it. thats very irresponsible.

its not getting closer to explaining anything. intelligent design is just a way of saying, based on my subjective opinion, this is too complicated; god mustve put it here as-is. of course, the ID community works really hard to hide its motives so that they can be taken seriously. the only way theyll finally be successful is if they adopt the scientific method and fight fire with fire, and really prove, scientifically, that evolutionary theory is wrong. until then, they wont get far, they cant. can they have a political victory? perhaps, but there will always be people who know the truth, who know what science really is.

im not sure if those who want creationism in the science classes fully appreciate how slippery that slope is. witchcraft, astrology, reincarnation. all those things will have a door they can try and walk through, if science is redefined to force the inclusion of creationism/non science.



science is science, science itself is the rule. if you add a component to the "equation" its no longer science.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

Science and philosophy(including different theologies) are equally powerful; schools today, especially in earlier grades, propose only science - which means students are only getting half of the necessary outlook. I could show you a great number of instances where philosophy is more significant than science.

__________________
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." - Alexander Pope

i dont see how thats relevant.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

The theory of evolution began as a philosophical concept. It was later supported with science in the theory of natural selection, but you already know this.

__________________
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." - Alexander Pope

i still dont see your point.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

I don't speak for all of the "ID" community when I say this, so please don't missunderstand, but I have taken great pains to point out that we are all about fostering science. I don't see how it's destruction would help anyone. I think this is a "Burning Rome" comment.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

How can you not see it? Philosophy/Theology (or opposition to) inhererently invented science. Science without ethics is detrimental to society, not helpful.

__________________
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." - Alexander Pope

im no chicken little. evolutionary theory is well supported by science; bringing it into question would make science as a whole vulnerable to non science.

i wouldnt say it invented science. what im not seeing is how what youre discussing has anything to do with the kitzmiller v dover issue. im not against philosophy.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.