20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum

Hi Beretta: Let me start this by asking for the eighth time...please supply us with the I.D. hypothesis, or admit that none exists. We're running our of thread space here Beretta, please see if you can do this one simply thing before we reach post number 300...please.
Anyway...on to your post: I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Look around you Beretta, there's a shit load of evidence for the "creative" power of random mutation and natural selection. Are you suggesting that we know very little about random mutation and natural selection, as the apply to the ToE? Oh, and by the way...evolution IS a fact. Even you admit as much. So teaching evolution as a fact is the only thing we can do. Now, we couple that fact with the only viable scientific explanation for how evolution "works", (namely, the ToE), and there's the beginnings of a wonderful lesson plan for a high school biology course. Of course, if we follow your suggestions, we'd have to stop teaching and stop asking questions and instead just say: "...and this part here...well...God did that so we can stop investigating and testing". Because that is not what it is. A hypothesis is a specific "answer" to a specific question. A theory is a scientifically sound generalization. The ToE addresses all of life, and how it could have evolved. It is the result of a "collection" of verified experiments (via countless hypotheses) that cover the gambit of life on this planet. That's your lesson plan...to simply tell kids that I.D. thinks that the ToE is not good enough? What are you going to teach in it's place? Again, your only option would be to then say something like: "and therefore we can stop looking for more fossils, we can stop studying geology, we can ignore radiometric dating, we can stop studying comparative anatomy, we can ignore biochemistry, we can skip over developmental biology...(and the list goes on and on)...and instead we can claim that God did it". I dare say, you'll be very popular amongst the student body. They'll all want to take Mr. Beretta's biology class because about five minutes into the semester, the course would be over. Go to one of the many threads that address this issue. It's not a complicated as you think, nor does it (the Cambrian explosion) in any way support the I.D. movement. See above. And we don't say that...so what's your point? Well, since we cannot really scientifically investigate the supernatural (except, of course, to disprove it as a viable hypothesis), what other options do we have. Personally, I like science. It's done wondrous things for the planet (and some not-so-wonderful things too). What contributions has I.D. made?What you are essentially asking science to do, is when we find something for which we have not yet found an answer, to halt all further investigation and simply state that God did it. No thanks, I'll stick with science, thank you very much. Well...essentially, yes. How do you scientifically investigate that which cannot be seen...that which cannot be heard, that which cannot be felt...basically, that which does not exist? You seem to want science to engage in mythological investigations. How do you propose we do that, exactly? And why would you want us to do that...exactly? Aren't you happy with our medical advancements over that past 150 years or so? Aren't you happy with our technological advancements over the past 150 years or so? What do you have against science anyway?

And yet, there is no way to test such an idea. So again, I ask:
What is the I.D. hypothesis that we can use to test what the designer actually designed, where the designer comes into play (did he design all species? Did he design all phyla? Did he design all kingdoms?...you get the picture), and why he designed us, for example, so poorly? While it may be true to say that it is "valid" that they agree a designer designed things...it is equally valid to say that there is no scientific validity in their claims. Their valid claim of agreement means nothing from a scientific standpoint. What is their common conclusion? Is it that something designed somethings at sometime? I can "attack" that pretty easily, simply by asking for any supportive evidence. What sort of predictions are you looking for? You need to remember the "random" part of random mutation. We have no way of knowing how, what, when, where, or why any particular mutation might occur. While it is true that we may be able to accurately predict one or two of these variables, and/or that we can manipulate one or two of them in a laboratory setting (just ask a geneticists, they do this sort of thing all the time with fruit flies), this will certainly not allow us to predict what future generations of naturally occurring species may look like, nor when the may "speciate", nor any other sort of wild-ass guess you may want us to make. Again, I fail to fully understand what you're trying to say here. What sort of "tests" has natural selection failed? Not true. Just look at the advancements in medicine alone, that we have made in the past 150 years. You don't think evolutionary biology played any role in that? Tell people trying to come up with an AIDS vaccine (or cure) that evolutionary biology is not useful. Tell them that praying to an unknown designer would be a far better use of their time.

Thanks. Yet another excellent example of the predictive power of the ToE. Now, if only CTD would use I.D. to make any sort of comparable prediction (but I won't be holding my breath). Hell neither he nor Beretta can supply even something as simply as a hypothesis we can actually test.

A failed hypothesis, I might add. Or, depending how the hypothesis is worded, an untestable hypothesis. You want us to waste time teaching this in school? What in the hell are you talking about? Why would he include a hypothesis that has failed? How can he include a theory that hasn't been stated? And in what way does any of the crap affect the ToE, as it relates to macroevolution (your term, not mine). And who gives a fuck about the big bang theory? We're talking evolution and I.D. here, CTD, not astronomy and physics. Why not exclude all the failed hypotheses, not just those we dislike...and we can call it...The Theory of Evolution? Wow, this is such utter bull shit on soooooo many levels.First, your link to these studies is...?Second, seeing as how creationism is not taught in public schools, I wonder how these "tests" were conducted.Third, Evolution is not in any way, shape, or form, a religion, or in any way, shape, or form, religious in nature. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You're saying that a rigorous science education is far worse than...and I quote..."any of the zany junk mentioned thus far for I.D." Glad we agree that it's both zany and junk.Oh, hey, while I got ya here...we only have abut 40 posts to go...is there any chance that either you or Beretta will finally supply a testable, I.D. hypothesis?Edited by FliesOnly, : No reason given.Edited by FliesOnly, : to fix a typo

You just don't get it, do you. The Prediction is, in essence, a hypothesis. Looking for the fossil is a test of that hypothesis. The finding of the fossil (as predicted) is validation of the hypothesis. That's a simplified explanation of how it works in science. Now, can you provide anything remotely like this based on I.D.? Am I to believe you? Are you asking me to trust you and accept that you could provide an I.D. hypothesis if you wanted to? Sorry, but I absolutely do not believe you. Nope, so you can drop that excuse. Well, seeing as how you have been a rather prolific poster as of late, I think we can rule out that you're lazy. This thread is about the I.D. curriculum 20 years down the road. It's based on the premise that I.D. advocates, like yourself, continually claim the scientific validity of your concept. Asking you to provide to us a piece of information that is the very foundation of science is certainly a reasonable request. If your inability to supply such information somehow or another makes you feel picked upon, or makes you feel that it's asked only in an attempt to make you look bad...well, that's just tough shit for you.And could it be that there exits one more highly plausible explanation for why you intend to not provide an I.D. hypothesis?
4.) None exists.

Uh, no...CTD...the I.D. hypothesis is not the very foundation of science. A scientific hypothesis is the very foundation of the scientific method. And it's also, coincidentally, something you cannot supply. You should try reading for context sometime...it adds a whole new dimension to participating in a debate. I did...repeatedly. A few times from you...a few more times from Beretta. Oh quit acting like a five year-old throwing a temper tantrum. I made an assumption that you can read. Sorry if that was too big of an assumption to make. I think it was made perfectly clear to anyone following this post that both you and Beretta were asked to supply an I.D. hypothesis. Beretta basically ignored the request and you simply acted like a child. See post 252..and then while you're there...read it. So I need to follow links and then piece together the I.D. hypothesis? You have a pretty poor and/or rather bizarre concept of how science is suppose to work. Then where the fuck is it CTD? I have never, ever, at anytime, anywhere, seen a testable I.D. hypothesis.Look all I have done for the last 250 posts or so is ask you and/or Beretta (two big proponents of I.D.) to supply a hypothesis. He ignores the request...while you make up bull shit just to avoid the request.Congratulations though...we're at 300 posts and the topic of the thread was never addressed by a I.D. proponent. As is typical, all you did was throw out the same ol' crapolla about the weaknesses and falsehoods of the ToE. But yet, even when asked, you could not even so much as supply an I.D. hypothesis...let alone lay out a science curriculum addressing I.D.Typical.