20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum

You're right!
We should start giving equal time in elementary school health classes to the non-materialistic methods of maintaining their health. Things like reflexology, prayer teams, charms, and Voodoo should be presented as viable options to good diet and cleanliness.
We wouldn't want them to rely on materialistic dogma.If creationists got their way then the "materialistic dogma" would be morphed into methods that included a particular spiritual requirement. Medicine would require prayer and fasting as a prerequisite to surgery. Any spiritual expression outside of the "scientific" establishment would be marginalized if not made illegal.Eventually we would wind up with a 17th century theocracy....fighting the Moors, burning witches and stoning adulterers.

Perhaps you think I was being a bit extreme. You say that nobody has any intention on changing science. However, Dr. Behe stated that for ID to be considered science, the definition of scientific theory had to be changed to include proposals with a severe dearth of evidential support...such as astrology. It seems to open the door for other scientific theories like Voodoo, charms and the like. Since astrology, Voodoo, spirits and charms would be viable scientific theories, they have a right to be taught in public schools as credible alternatives to the current methods of handling problems in areas like health.Since you don't believe this to be so, could you point out what would disqualify these ideas as scientific theories yet leave ID as a viable scientific theory?

What is meant by this statement? Do you mean that the Constitution is corrupt? In what way?What is your grand scheme for changing the Constitution and what will this do to society in America 20 years hence?My opinion is that if you change the Constitution to restrict the freedoms of any part of the population (Atheists, Muslims, homosexuals...etc) then you undermine the basic tenets under which this country was founded.If your plan is to change the First Amendment with regards to the government's hands off approach to religion then I will be quickly looking into job prospects in Canada or New Zealand (both are nice places).

Percy has written that he is not.I say that you are an atheist.
You say you are not. Evidence?On topic:
What are the changes that must be made to America to incorporate ID in the science curriculum? How will those changes affect the US in 20 years?
Would atheism be illegal? What about Islam...allowed or not? How about Assemblies of God...legal...not legal?Would freedom of expression be affected by these sweeping changes that your religion/sect will put in place?

Amazingly, they both believe that the TOE is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. They believe it was directed by an intelligent designer but it occurred just the same.Since you say they are the most correct based on the inane logic that they are opposed by "evolutionists" the most, does this mean that you buy into evolution, speciation and the like? OR Do you think your statements, that macro and micro evolution don't occur, are wrong?

From Michael Behe's own hand:

quote:

---

Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutinoary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism--natural selection working on variation--might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." ~ Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 7

---

From TEACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN -- WHAT HAPPENED WHEN?
A RESPONSE TO EUGENIE SCOTT
-By William A. Dembski

quote:

---

First off, intelligent design is not a form of anti-evolutionism. Intelligent design does not, as Eugenie Scott falsely asserts, claim that living things came together suddenly in their present form through the efforts of a supernatural creator. Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation.

---

and

quote:

---

...intelligent design has no stake in living things coming together suddenly in their present form. To be sure, intelligent design leaves that as a possibility. But intelligent design is also fully compatible with large-scale evolution over the course of natural history, all the way up to what biologists refer to as "common descent" (i.e., the full genealogical interconnectedness of all organisms). If our best science tells us that living things came together gradually over a long evolutionary history and that all living things are related by common descent, then so be it. Intelligent design can live with this result and indeed live with it cheerfully.

---

It looks to me that they both accept macroevolution and microevolution which you say never happened. Perhaps they don't accept TOE as you define it but I am "ignorant" of your strange definition of it.So back to the question at hand.
You said that they are most correct because they are most opposed by evolutionists.
Does this mean you now believe that macro-evolution and micro-evolution have occurred?
Do you now accept common descent through evolutionary mechanisms as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet?
Or
Will you now say that Behe's and Dembski's version of ID is incorrect and unacceptable by you.Looks like I'm not the only one who is ignorant...to say the least. Edited by LinearAq, : make quote more readable

Ah! Now we finally get to it. So, you would teach that an undetectable Designer is logically more plausible than the chemical and biological(also chemical) processes that have been observed by science thus far.
Can you support that beyond your assertion that it is true?
How would you show the student sitting in your science class that a designer must logically exist?
What are the telltale signs of the designer's handiwork?
Is the development of antibiotic resistance, in a population of bacteria that was spawned from one individual bacterium, a direct intervention by the designer?
What part of a now-resistant bacterium would you show them to provide evidence as to your contention that the designer was/wasn't the direct cause of the antibiotic resistance?Please, provide us with your unassailable logic. Inquiring young minds wait breathlessly for your hand to guide them into areas of knowledge that science has thus far been unable to reach.As an aside: I get this mental picture that every time you say "atheist", you spit it out as if you had just taken a drink of sour milk.Edited by LinearAq, : Trying to make my likely-to-be-ignored questions more easily understood.