science teaches not only past discoveries but also how to view things in an objective manner, how to think critically. on the subject of dismissal, you should keep in mind that an open question remains just a question. no one is saying that questions cant be asked, but the claim that id and evolution are both scientific theories is an outright lie.

__________________

And? Who claimed that? Panspermia, abiogenesis and ID are theories of the origin of life. I'm not afraid of any of that being discussed in high school. Even if ID came to be accepted as the most probable explanation, it would still not point to a specific religion as the answer. I merely want kids minds to be opened.

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

but id is about religion; thats what its based on, 12th. the people who want id in classrooms claim it should be a scientific theory to be compared to evolution as an alternative. thats what this thread is about. its not a concern of it being discussed, the concern is with it being presented as science, which it is not. creationists can work toward forming a new subject in schools, that would make more sense than redefining science so that the supernatural can fit in.

kids being open minded is great, but not if theyre being lied to. as ive expressed to commonsense many times, if there was another class that studied creation myths, religion, philosophy or what have you, that would be fine. but id is being presented as science when it simply isnt, it doesnt belong in a classroom dedicated to teaching that specific subject. and if you follow the case this thread is about, youll see that the intention of id advocates is clear.

__________________

For myself, the answer is "no, it doesn't belong." At least, not as a subject in itself.

A class on evolution, for example, could well have the first day (or part of the day) devoted to origins:

"Where did life come from? Well, some people say God created it. Others believe that life arose spontaneously."

(pause)

"But that's all in the realm of faith. As far as science is concerned, we don't know yet. Which is why this class will focus on evolution -- what happened *after* life began. Turn to Page 1 in the text."

__________________
Man up.

Two problems with that:

1. Irreducible complexity relies on the argument that "this couldn't possibly have evolved, because it doesn't work if it's missing any parts." To disprove that, all you've got to do is show a plausible path for the organ's evolution, because at that point it's no longer "irreducible." It's not necessary to demonstrate that a given path is actually how it evolved.

2. The previous point notwithstanding, most refutations of irreducible complexity claims do, in fact, provide evidence of how a given part evolved, using extant animals and fossil records. So it's not pure conjecture, and in some cases it's not conjecture at all.

__________________
Man up.

Ah, but there is always a point of irreducible complexity. Always. And if you dismiss conjecture with conjecture, it's a tie.

Now, I'll have to ask for a link. I've only seen possible explanations. Take the umpteen different chemical reactions required for a cell to sense light and go from there. Chance mutation? Of course! So how did it replicate itself once it accidentally got it right?

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

No where in my post, did I ever give an example of a purely religious process? What you are saying is: Because someone believes in a different origin, disqualifies their perspective on hard science. ID somehow handicaps them. That is as unscientific as it gets. It sounds like the Christians burned Rome again or the Salem Witch Trials, making an alarmist declaration based on a loose association people are more inclined to side with than to think through. (Don't take this as disrespect, but, shame on you.)

Science embraces conjecture with a lack of evidence all the time. How do you think Piltdown man was manufactured? How do you thing our highly esteemed Lander and Kruglyak's (1995) criteria for genomewide significance in the "gay gene" gained wide acceptance before it was completely studied. I don't think ID gets a free pass because I am a Bible believer. Will I cheer? Sure. But I wont cheer if there's nothing to cheer about.

I don't think my position has been more mischaracterized in the face of repeated evidence to the contrary since I last argued with my wife...

"I mailed the heating bill..."
"You constantly forget these things, what I am I going to do with you?"
"I mailed it. The heating bill, its in the mail."
"You don't you care about me at all. Do I have to do everything around here."
"The bill is in the mail box and the flag is up. He will be here any minute to take it to the POST OFFICE."
"Now, there, you see... You didn't do... You mailed it?"

ID will not undermine the fabric of science. Just like Evolution will NOT unravel the fabric of Christianity. When EVO says there is no God, then they are playing a space they have no place. When Christians say that you can't disolve salt, I will be right along side of you saying, YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

In progress. Thank you for the link.

Now we are getting closer to the crux of the argument. If we let Christian's proffer their beliefs, then we marginalize science by allowing subjectivism to run rampent. I would defend that. Lets not talk about Origins at all, in science. Lets just talk about rival causal relationships and causal relationships. Let the kids apply the reasoning and logic powers to form their own ideas about Origins.

Astrology is a system of thought, much like witchcraft, in the minds of evangelicals.

I would like to see that. My guess is that Astronomy was more consistent with Dr. Behe's talks, that I have heard.

Science can't test origins for the same reason ID cant' test God. The assignment of physics in such a way to proffer a belief about origins, is equally mystical as applying religious experiences to explain it. The only difference that I can see, is that we have a book that claims to have the answers. And that Book is the Chief Corner Stone. We have every right to use it to explain origins, because it's uniquely qualified to speak to that subject matter with authority. Science books come and go and are revised by new data, nearly quarterly. The Bible hasn't even undergone one revision. It has been attacked by revisionist who write their own versions, but the faithful know the difference.

My position is still the same... ID can't be disqualified as a valid field of study and it doesn't injure science, because it is a discussion about Origins and not mechanics. We still acknowledge that H2O is water, no need to be afraid.

__________________
"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

im not talking about you personally, grant. ive followed this case to a good extent, this unscientific theory arose and is propped up not by science but religion. instead of submitting the idea to extensive scientific testing, scientific peer review and scientific consensus like every other scientific theory allowed in classroom texts, the creationists instead went to the courts. this was for obvious reasons, one of them being the very close and public ties to religion instead of science. can something religious end up being scientifically proven? sure, but until it is, it simply isnt.

science welcomes new ideas and scrutiny, yes, but it does not welcome misnomers. and i didnt misrepresent your position, i was talking about those involved in this case, specifically. although, you did touch on the need to redefine science earlier, so take that as you will. redefining science to rightfully present id as a valid scientific theory would most definitely undermine science. science is a very strict discipline for good reason.

origins are perfectly fine to discuss in science as long as the discussion is scientific (without redefining science). thats the crux of the argument.

science can test what it can test, ill leave it at that. dont mix origins and god, because theyre completely different issues. you have every right to explain things to yourselves, but ideas in an old book that is never updated (this is a good thing?) have no business in the science classroom.

your position: "id cant be disqualified as a valid field of study." that by itself is perfectly fine, just dont call it science when it isnt, because that would injure science.

__________________

Oh, I know... JMS, I have enjoyed talking about this issue with you more than most I have encountered in my life time. And I don't say that lightly.

In all honesty, going to court is a playbook that both sides of this issue have attempted. I think it's dishonest to go to court to resolve the deatails of the issue, instead of the merits of the policy.

No one wants religious explanations for how gravity works. I don't, for sure. Because we end up with Dianetics people tossing themselves off of buildings because a little box told them they could.

No respected person, that I know of, wants ID to have an unequal place at the table. As a matter of fact, we who are honest, want you to douse the alter with water, 7 times, first. We want you to know the truth about origins because we believe it will lend credibility to our explanation of destination. We want you to see how it began, so you can understand how it ends. Strict discipline is what brought me to this perspective - I went from artist, to policemen, to computer software analyst. If you ever had your blood analyzed by a lab, chances are it was my software that did it. (from a QA standpoint, not from a development standpoint). I reviewed the code and certified it to the FDA, that your creatnine levels are high, low or ok... LOL I know what precision is.

I find no fault in your logic. I would argue from the same point of view if I was certain that there wasn't a God. But there is... a God. And that means that the whole paradigm changes. Not in the sense of the "how", but in the sense of the "why". If people want to know, why, then God provides proof in his creation, that He's there and that He's real. Nothing about God's existance causes people of good conscience to replace penicillin with Harry Potter, except if you are Tom Cruise at a Scientology convention. But we all are on to him, so that wont be a problem.

I respect this statement.

I promise I mailed the heating bill.

I really promise I mailed the heating bill.

__________________
"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

This is a word-for-word cut and paste from a cosmic evolution site recommended to me by CommonSense (that's sounds so funny, I bet he planned it that way, lol)

Now read this exact paragraph with different words highlighted.

Without any commemt on my part, what would be your first observations?

__________________
"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