Work on this is in progress, and I predict within the next two centuries, it will be public scientific knowledge, how to mix which chemicals to synthesize some sort of living cell in a lab.

This is why it is so important to emphasize all aspects of philosophy/religion to students, as 12th man said "put it all on the table" and let them become free thinkers in all realms, not only science. If there is no ethical base, the world as we know it will quickly become what none of us want.

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

no one is arguing that people cant present their personal religious beliefs or philosophies, the problem is when you essentially destroy science to make religion fit in that conext. its like scientists trying to write actual scientific theory into the bible - it just doesnt belong. you can teach other subjects if you wish, they just have no place in a classroom devoted to science.

__________________

You are repeating yourself and ignoring arguments. I think I just heard you stomp your feet. I am talking about KNOWN science. Let's say that I contend that X is irreducibly complex. My scientist comes up with a plausible explanation for how X could have evolved. Wait. Stop. Can't prove it. Can't test it. Must not be science then because it can't be said to be FACT. Yet, you would accept it? Wouldn't you say that science should not require a leap of faith?

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

I guess my argument does not fit here. Because yes, science should be a completely separate subject, it shouldn't be mixed with alternative theories. But there should be more emphasis on those subjects of philosophy/theology, etc. at the same time (in another class, and there isn't much today).

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

12th, evolution is tested and proven, otherwise it wouldnt be accepted theory in the scientific community. scientific theory is based on facts, it explains facts, it deals in facts, tested and proven. intelligent design, even if you ignore the fact that its based on religious belief, is pure, unadulterated conjecture.

im all for that. make kids have 9 to 5 days like everyone else. im sure working parents would love that. i would love for kids to learn more - i think it would be great.

__________________

To me, this post hit on something I would consider essential.

Two people at Covance are discussing drug interactions. On the table is a drug combination of Lexapro, Effexor and Tramadol known, that if combined could raise serotonin to dangerous levels (serotonin syndrome). They know that hyper-serotonin levels in a human being can cause irreversible coma or death. The information they used to determine this, was science at its best. Whether or not either one of these men believed that God created human beings or not, has NO bearing on their analysis. They came to the right conclusion because they were both good at what they do. I know of excellent doctors who are atheists. I know of excellent doctors who are evangelical Christians. This is a silly argument to have, because rational people understand the differences between apples and oranges.

Now enter another type of scientist. He's a forensic pathologists. He walks into a court room and testifies that, yes, for all intensive purposes, the victim died of natural causes. However, we have no explanation for how she got outside. There are no other clues that tell us how she could possibly die, and then be set on the ground, outside the house. We know that someone, not something, moved her there. We know that she was unconscious when she was laid there, and we know she died, while laying in the yard.

The defense says, "How do you know someone moved her?"

The witness says, "Because, there are no signs she moved herself." And the scene inside of the house, indicates she wasn't conscious when she collapsed onto the kitchen floor."

What is the doctor doing. He is removing plausible causes to arrive at a conclusion that in the absence of any convincing proof to the contrary, we are going to assume that someone moved the body. Then he is going to cite all kinds of things, missing, in order to make his point. The fact that the body was in the yard needs an explanation as to how it got there. Science can tell you, it wasn't an animal, it wasn't a naturally occurring phenomena, it wasn't the victim. Even though there is no credible evidence to suggest that a person moved the body, it scientifically reasonable and admissible to conclude that someone did.

If I follow your line of reasoning. Then witness should recues himself because he's a Christian, he believes in six literal days, and he made a deduction in the absence of evidence.

I rest my case.

__________________
"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

Evolution is a broad term. That it happened is proved. That it is the process by which a cell has the ability to sense light is not. You're stretching beyond known facts, not me. It's almost as if you think that evolution is proved to be the source of all life. Perhaps you agree with Ix that "religious doctrine that has been proven wrong time and time again"?


Because you say so, it must be fact? I'm talking about irreducible complexity. Go all the way back to the very first living cell. You must agree that there had to be one. Never mind where it came from. By what process did it multiply? and how do you arrive at the idea that it has been proved? Do you believe that abiogenesis has no place in science class since it too is based on conjecture?

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

usgrant, the reason why intelligent design proponents insist that it be equal to science is purely religious. how can you, of sound mine, really expect the scientific community to embrace conjecture with no scientific evidence supporting it? remember, theyre presenting it not as mere evidence against evolutionary theory (which is what it should be presented as), but rather a complete, alternate theory. do you realize how absurd that is? in order to fully appreciate the ramifications of such a juxtaposition, you first need to understand what science is. the fact that you must completely redefine science in order to rightfully proclaim that id is a valid scientific theory is proof positive that id advocates dont fully understand what science is, and therefore have no business dictating what is and is not science.

i urge you to read the entire transcript of the kitzmiller v dover case. its very, very long, but youll find a lot of information that will hopefully help you see why this intelligent design is science business is so absolutely ridiculous. keep in mind that broadening the definition of science (essentially destroying science as we know it) would mean anything could pass as science and enter into the classrooms. science would then teach astrology and who knows what else. whats next, palm reading and magic potions? correct me if im wrong, but arent christians generally against astrology? that was the case when i was brought up christian. michael behe unequivocally states that astrology would be valid science if id were declared admissible in science. i dont know about you, but i consider that a very slippery slope.

theories in science, they explain things with bodies of facts observed and tested, they explain things by proving things to be consistent and conclusive. intelligent design would have to explain something to be a scientific theory; it does not explain anything but rather gives up on explanation. does intelligent design explain the phenomenon of creation (gods creation)? no. intelligent design cannot explain this phenomenon because that cannot be tested, its the same reason why science doesnt try to disprove god, it simply cannot be tested. science explains what it can, it does not attempt to explain what it cannot.

__________________

no, thats just it, 12th. in the context of science, i work within proven fact, exclusively - that is what science is about. evolution doesnt explain the beginning of life, thats not what its about at all. do i agree that the bible has been proven wrong time and time again? i dont bother considering that because i cant prove whether or not god exists, or whether or not there is a heaven and hell, etc. i think that most of the supernatural beliefs presented in the bible are highly improbable, but i dont bother to determine whether they are or not because its simply not provable. just like i cant prove, from where im sitting, that you dont have an alien eating children in your closet.

no, its not fact just because i say so. not at all. irreducible complexity, is it possible? sure, but can it be tested and proven? no. in the context of id however, its been debunked. science is not without a degree of indifference to things it cannot explain through observation and experimentation. thats what makes science so objective. science welcomes scrutiny, i cant stress that enough, but if the scrutiny is not scientific, you will get nowhere. the day a creationst proves, scientifically, that evolutionary theory is wrong, they will be applauded, rewarded and deeply respected for it.

__________________

That's exactly what I disagree with you on. Science has very much to do with the unknown. That's what scientists do. Are there many successful scientist who lack curiosity? I don't want to simply give kids a set of facts to memorize. Give them something to think about. When my kids were in advanced math classes, they didn't just do extra math. They had creative projects and puzzles that had little resemblance to math. Learning by rote is not how they got 790 and 800 out of 800 on the SAT.

Perhaps it can be either proved or disproved. To dismiss it is a mistake. Arguments against it generally consist of "it could have happened this way" and other types of "maybe" generalizing. Now that's sad. Dismissing conjecture with conjecture. Why not leave the question open? It's no different than contemplating what the bottom of the ocean or outer space is like. You'll never know without a big dose of curiosity... and an open mind.

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt