20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum

Beretta,Everything you say is so much hot air until you can provide an hypothesis backed by evidence for the following:-1. Who or what did the designing
2. How was it done?You have no evidence. All you have is poorly conceived criticism against an entirely erroneous caricature of evolution.Care to provide that hypothesis?

Beretta,Any word on that ID hypothesis and its supporting evidence?

All the evidence we have supports the ToE. All of the "evidence aginst evolution" consists of gross scientific distortions peddled by religious activists.If you want to teach ID to kids you need something to teach beyond "evolution is wrong".I have asked twice for a ID hypothesis. You have pointedly ignored these requests. How is it coming on?Without a useful hypothesis you have NOTHING to teach, end of argument!Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

The point is that there is no ID science to teach. Both you and I know that ID has no theory and no testable hypotheses, so please refrain from fobbing me off with "do your own research"!All ID "science" is merely poorly thought out ToE criticism.To teach ID as science you need to attempt to explain:-1. How the ID process works.
2. How the design process can be seen to exist in nature.
2. What did the designing.Repeatedly saying "evolution is wrong" doesn't cut it.You can criticise the ToE all you like, but ID has NOTHING to offer as a scientific alternative. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

How can an non-material explanation be verified if it cannot be tested?Imagine that every time I say "f*ck" I'm struck by lightning that has no apparent physical origin. How do I know that the Biblical God did it instead of the Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus? It's not that ID isn't allowed to mention God, it's that ID has no evidence to support such an entity. The existence of men, on the other hand, is verifiable. How do we verify "the truth" when it has no material expression?

Only up to a point. The effects of Astrology can be tested, but given that astrology does not posit any material means for the transmission of its influence the underlying mechanism of astrology can not be tested.Even if there was a 100% correlation between astrological predictions and outcomes we would still be no nearer to identifying how astrology works.In this sense it can be regarded as non-science.

So all ID does is trot out the same tired old PRATTs of ToE criticism. Where is that ID hypothesis that FilesOnly and myself have been asking for?What would kids be taught in ID class besides "evolution is wrong"? Will they learn how ID works? Will they hear about predictions that ID makes? Will they learn who exactly did the designing?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

We can see the effects of gravitational lensing on stars through telescope. We also know that gravity distorts space-time, thus producing the effects we see. What is still unknown is the exact nature of gravitational radiation, but this is something that can be and is being investigated. This is no great mystery - the strong nuclear force.Both effects manifest themselves in ways we are able to investigate. Your analogy is flawed.

The ToE in conjunction with geology has also made predictions that have guided archaeologists. Tiktaalik, a fish-amphibian transitional, was found due to predictions as to when it might be found in the fossil record and where to dig.Edited by RickJB, : Typo.

Leaving aside the fact that this is complete nonsense, how does ToE criticism amount to an ID hypothesis? Even if the ToE was incorrect, how does that in any way provide support for ID?This comes back to the question we have been asking Beretta - what hypotheses does ID propose? How does ID work? Who exactly was/is the designer?ID has nothing to say except "evolution is wrong" with endlessly regurgitated PRATTs.Without a hypothesis ID amounts to nothing.Edited by RickJB, : Typos.

Heh. I assure you I've seen this game many times before. It's called the "what is reality anyway?" or "blow up into infinities" game. It's trotted out by anti-science apologists whenever they are unable to provide evidence for their faith-based assertions.For sure science doesn't yet have ALL the answers - maybe it never will, but science explains much more about our universe than "Goddidit" because it makes use of things that are manifest in out universe.Can faith tell you how to make a computer? Can faith make a spacecraft? Can faith develop medicines? All of these have been created because humankind has investigated the observable mechanisms of our universe. Science works, no matter how much you try to deny it.By the way, what's the word on that ID hypothesis we're all waiting for? What are we going to teach these kids...?

Then you say: So you accept that science works and refute the accusation that you deny this?

Without a testable hypothesis as to how ID works, what exactly are we supposed to be looking at?