20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum

I have no interest in giving you or flies only an ID hypothesis. Go'n look on an ID website. I just happen to like and support what I have read on the topic. This is not the forum for that in any case. Are you pretending you have never heard the Id hypothesis or are you asking me to copy it so that you can rip it apart? What is your point?

Yes it must be changed so that material causes are not the only ones allowed to be considered.If 'matter is all there is' that would be fine, but we don't know that for a fact and some things are better explained by non-material causes. In other words if purely natural mechanisms produced life on this planet then great but if there's evidence to say that that may not be so, then limiting what is allowed to be defined as science to natural causes may shut out the real cause -thus the truth of what actually happened to produce life on the planet may be excluded by what is currently accepted as the definition of science.As an analogy, imagine you have to hypothesize on how computers came to exist but you are not allowed to mention man -you are limited to only those processes that occur within a computer -the correct answer is thus excluded a priori.Id proposes that natural causes may not be the only explanation possible for life on this earth but it does not attempt to get into who or what the creative intelligence may be because the identity of the designer is not part of science -that would be part of a theological debate.The point is not to exclude the potentially correct answer by limiting the definition of science to material causes and passing it off as fact since it may shut out investigation into the truth of what actually did produce life.Much like the identity of the creator being out of the domain of science, so would things like voodoo and charms be out of the realm of scientific investigation.

What about the fossil record -what does it show? Sudden appearance and stasis with variation within fairly narrow limits.Extinction for some or continuance to this day relatively unchanged over hundreds of millions of years. The only things that really change a lot are the things evolutionists imagine are related but that is only because they have this apriori adherence to naturalism so they must all be related -after all they have a common ancestor don't they -anyone with a brain knows that, don't they?
No I'm afraid the evidence is against gradualism -it's not the tree of life, it's a lawn of life with some blades shorter than others.
So in this case, evolution is the type of pseudoscience you must be talking about -the evidence is against it.As for ID, the evidence matches the theory which is why it is infinately more satisfying a theory.
The postulate IS feasible -Helloooo!

No, I think you're wrong -there are divisions about what may have happened but we all agree on one major point -that mutation and natural selection cannot account for the complexity of what exists -we all agree that saying that random change accounts for everything is wishful thinking and is not supported by evidence -in short it is a naturalistic belief system, not science.
There is no reason to teach that belief system to kids as if it is fact if it is not proven to be true.

And so in the meantime in the absence of evidence for the creative power of mutation and natural selection, you think that it is good enough to teach evolution as fact? How about leaving it as an hypothesis in the meantime?
ID says it is not good enough, the fossil evidence does not confirm the evolutionary hypothesis. how did the cambrian explosion occur. Where are all the intermediates that are absent in vast numbers? It's no good saying 'well the evidence is missing but because we are naturalists, we are sure we know what happened in any case.'Maybe you should face the fact that 'science' has not discovered how complex organisms could have developed and then keep looking into all the possibilities instead of just the naturalistic one.
If you say that naturalistic explanations are the only ones that are allowed, you may have shut out what really happened -is that science?