20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum

You ever going to give us the I.D. hypothesis?

Look, Beretta, it's really amazingly simple. Provide to us the testable, falsifiable hypothesis as put forth by the I.D crowd, or admit that there is none. Can you do this...please?

Let's ignoring the rest of your rant, and just focus on this little tidbit. Honestly, after reading this I now see why you have never provided the I.D hypothesis. You're too scientifically inept to remotely understand how science works. Honestly, I don't know how else to say it, other than to state that your above paragraph shows a level of ignorance that is staggering to the point of perhaps concluding that you are doing this merely as a joke.Do you seriously believe the crap you wrote? Have you absolutely no ability to question the source of your information and perhaps do a bit of reading on the...oh...I don't know...third grade level perhaps...and discover for yourself what a complete and utter load of hogwash your "claims" about the fossil record happen to be? Or do you seriously believe that that is how the fossil record is truly sorted...based on an organisms ability to run away from flood waters? Wait!!! Holy shit...I just saw an oak tree run past my window...there must be a flood coming...I gotta get going!

Don't hold your breath...I've been asking the same thing for weeks.

Never? As in "not ever"? You sure about this? You might want to check in the I.D. movement with a little more vigor before making a statement like this. NO, I.D. is not an observation. Well, I suppose you could call it an observation in exactly the same way as me seeing green fairies riding on the backs of pink unicorns is an observation.Regardless, even if we grant you that I.D is somehow observable...how do you test that? What's you scientific method? What are you going to teach? I basically see a 1-2 second lecture that states "God did it"...class dismissed". What are your plans for the remaining 2958 seconds of that class day (assuming a 50 minute lecture), and then the remaining days of the semester? Well, in looking at some of "his" designs, I'd have to say that in reality "he" falls pretty low on the intelligence scale. Not quite. The ToE is a scientifically based, plausible explanation of the diversity of life we see on this planet. It most certainly is NOT a predetermined conclusion. It is based on decades of rigorous scientific testing of observable phenomena. It in no way makes any conclusions or statements in any way related to the Divine. It doesn't need to. It can explain the diversity of life we see without the need for divine explanations. The ToE is in no way a supposition. I.D., on the other hand, is a classic example of a supposition, so your premise is false from the outset. I look around at nature, and I see no evidence of an intelligent designer. I see evidence best explained by use of the scientific method (which you already admitted is nonexistent in I.D), so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Well, I'll have to give you credit for coming right out and stating that you really despise the United States and want, instead, to live in a pseudo-christian theocracy. How very disturbing. Pro-Atheism corruption of the Constitution? What the fuck does that mean? Are you claiming the the Framers of the Constitution were atheists? Or are you claiming that more recent pro-atheists (and WTF is a "pro-atheist" anyway? Is it someone who is not a atheist, but supports them nonetheless?) have corrupted our Constitution? Please explain to us how pro-atheists have corrupted our Constitution? The abolition of slavery? Racial and Women's suffrage? Are these some of the atheist corruptions of which you speak? Hey, here's an idea. Rather than waiting around for this Country to fall into ruin, why don't you just pick up and move to an already existing theocracy. There's plenty of them out there, so why wait?

Can you explain wtf this means?The ToE, by definition, is the evidence "for" evolution...otherwise it wouldn't be called the ToE. It's nice to know that we agree that the ToE should be taught in science classrooms.But what are these major icons against the ToE? Are you referring to the lack of evidence? We teach that all the time? When we don't know something, we say as much. What we don't do, when faced with something we don't know, is say something like: "Therefore we can properly conclude that God did it". Is that what you're asking us to do...to fill in those blanks with a Divine explanation? Sorry...no can do.Hey...you ever going to supply that elusive I.D. hypothesis that I, and now RickJB, have been asking for? It would certainly be a HUGE step forward in your desire to see I.D. taught in our children's classroom as a valid, plausible science.

And why, exactly, is that Beretta? Could it be that none exists, and you simply cannot (or will) not admit as much? Come on Beretta...with the copious amounts of stuff you write, surely you can find the time to provide us what should be three or four sentences (at most), that spell out the testable, falsifiable I.D. hypothesis. You "like it", I would guess, because it requires no intelligence to understand. You "like it", I suppose, because it does not require you to actually learn and study a vast array of topics. You "like it" because it's an answer that does not require you to think (hell, it actually depends on you not to think).And my hypothesis would be that you "support it" for religious reasons. Nope, I am most definitely not pretending...I have NEVER heard (or seen) a scientific hypothesis that addresses I.D. Sure...copy it and provide the link. That would be nice. Why have you resisted for so long? As for ripping it apart...well, I cannot say for sure, since I have yet to ever see one. Unlike cdesign proponentsists, I'll actually wait for the evidence to come in before I reach a conclusion.

Find ONE...ONE evolutionary biologists that makes this claim...ONE. Otherwise retract. But we both know that you can do neither.

Well, it's nice to know you're both delusional and paranoid The point would be that even non-atheists know that Creationism-Design is not science. You don't need to lack faith to know this...you just have to have the ability to think beyond the age of a third grader. In what way has our Constitution been corrupted? I asked you this same question a few posts back and you basically ignored it. Maybe this time you'll provide an answer, yes?And what the hell does "science will be restored to the classroom one appoitment at a time"mean? And what scientific theory is that? Creationism and I.D. are not science and have yet to produce even so much as a testable hypothesis, let alone a theory. Do you even know what a theory is, CFO? I think not. How can you have a theory when you have conducted absolutely no scientific investigations? You really need to consider pulling your head out of your ass and maybe read up a little on the scientific method and what it means to be a science.

It is absolutely NOT a fact and you know it. No judge (pro-evolution or otherwise) has banned any scientific theory. Well maybe way back at the Scopes trial a scientific theory was banned...but that is no longer the case now. You don't have a scientific theory CFO. You've never had a scientific theory CFO. What you have is a bunch of religious nonsense that you WANT taught as a science. You're just pissed that Judges are not a stupid as you wish them to be, and therefore know that Creationism and I.D. are one in the same...namely, religious concepts that cannot be taught in our public schools. Seriously dude...you need to get some help...you're disturbingly delusional. I'm beginning to fear for the safety of anyone anywhere near you.

You're correct...I am a person who cannot refute that you are apparently friggen nuts.

You do realize that in consecutive sentences, you completely contradict your self...yes? First you say the above nonsense. And next you say... So which is it, CFO? Which delusional rant do you want to claim as being accurate?Interestingly enough...if we read only a portion of your second sentence, we get the first factual tidbit that you have said thus far in this particular discussion.If only you would have stopped there.And I was serious earlier, when I said that you need to seek help. You appear ready to snap, and I do fear for your safety and for the safety of those around you when it happens. Get some professional help.Edited by FliesOnly, : to fix the subtitle

Hey Beretta...what's up? You ever gonna supply that I.D. hypothesis... like I asked for (most recently) way back in post 113, and you agreed to supply? Are you serious? And yet you expect it to be considered a "science"? Please supply us with what you think should be the definition of science. Such as? But how do you test for this Beretta? Do you not see the hole you are digging for yourself? Your analogy sucks, Beretta, because that is not anywhere near what you're asking for. What you're complaining about as not being fair would be more along the lines of something like this:"imagine you have to hypothesize on how computers came to exist but you are not allowed to mention green fairies riding on the backs of purple unicorns"-you are limited to those things that can be seen and measured and tested for. That's more in line with what your complaint entails. Bull shit. But regardless of your ridiculous claim that I.D. doesn't care who the designer is...I.D. is still something for which no test can be designed. Don't you get it, Beretta?And it cannot be taken seriously by the scientific community because, amongst other things, it does not have even so much as a testable hypothesis.Which reminds me....we gonna get one from you soon?

Your knowledge of the fossil record and how it us used in evolutionary biology is obviously quite lacking. It's not as simple as "Look...a fossil that looks like this other fossil, they are therefore related".But let's step back from actual science for a bit and see if we can get you to FINALLY provide a testable I.D. hypothesis...like the one you alluded to way back in post 114 (I believe).Continuing to ask for this is getting a bit bothersome. It's almost as if you can't find one, and just keep ignoring the question. That's not really what you're doing, is it Beretta? Certainly you have the I.D. hypothesis. What say you provide it to us in your next response...OK?

And just so we're clear, I started asking you to provide a testable hypothesis for I.D. way back in post 64 (I came to this thread a bit late). Now, including my original post, I have asked for this I.D. hypothesis seven times (and RickJB has asked at least three or four times), but you have yet to provide it to us.And here you are proclaiming I.D. to be a theory.In case you are unaware of how the scientific method works, Beretta, you first need to supply a test and a null hypothesis, perform experiment after experiment after experiment, wait years and years until such time that so many valid tests have confirmed so many testable hypotheses that the concept can "become " a theory. You don't just skip over the "hypothesis formation", and "repeatable experimentation" stages and go straight from "observation" to "theory". It doesn't work that way...sorry.So how about you slow down...take a deep breath...and before you proclaim the validity of I.D. as a theory, finally (after 233 posts...and remember, we only get 300), provide to us the I.D. hypothesis. Come on, give it the ol' college try there Beretta.