20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum

quote:

---

Now how can ID be counter to evolution? ID only questions abiogenesis, which is "supposed" to be a separate issue. Looks like these two "separate" issues are siamese twins. They're joined at the head and the heart, and if one dies the other can't last.

---

It isn't true that ID only questions abiogensis. Behe's ID has God directly intervening in evolution - and he's probably the most pro-evolution IDist out there. Others go much further in questioning or rejecting evolution - Paul Nelson is a Young Earth Creationist.Can you name even one major figure in ID who has publically admitted to accepting evolution - and only questions abiogenesis ?

quote:

---

It looks like I chose my words in a less than optimal manner. In the context of the mythical strict "evolution" which doesn't include abiogenesis, the essential conclusion of ID does not conflict. Naturally, when it comes to Orthodox Evolutionism and ID, the two are very much opposed and will remain so.

---

It seems that it is your definition of ID that is mythical. The definition used in "Of Pandas and People" certainly conflicts with evolution. Numerous ID works attack evolution (Behe, Wells, Dembski etc.). The ID list of "Darwin doubters" signed a statement doubting evolution. Indeed if ID was only about abiogenesis and not evolution, Darwin wouldn't figure. You haven't produced one major figure in ID who agrees with your definition.The problem is not your phrasing. It is that what you are saying is an obvious falsehood to anyone who knows anything about the ID movement.

quote:

---

As long as I'm clarifying, I'll point out that I never excluded anyone from ID. I said that most TE's would fit better in that party than they fit in their present party. That's inclusionary - not exclusionary.

---

Your definition excludes all the creationists too. In fact it excludes almost all the major figures in ID. What makes you think that you know better than them ?

What I find completely amazing is that even ID supporters won't agree on what ID is - or even with the leaders of th ID movement.Michael Behe insists that evolutionary mechanisms are limited and the designer has to step in. But he accepts common descent.CTD insists that even that isn't ID - ID has no objections to evolution at all.Beretta argues against even common descent.I suggest that this shows what will happen if ID wins. Well short of the twenty years the ID movement will implode due to its major internal divisions. And IMHO the YECs will probably win. Firstly because they are the major power base and secondly because the grass roots pay no attention to the leaders - except when its convenient.

quote:

---

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

---

That directly contradicts CTD who insists that ID doesn't challenge any part of evolution - only abiogenesis. Looks like there's a major disagreement right there.And you'll note that your point of agreement is purely negative. You've got nothing to teach, no alternative account. To assume that ID would stop with that - when it's a position they've retreated to, fairly recently - for twenty years seems pretty unlikely.

Since you still assume that ID is only interested in attacking evolution it is obvious that you haven't been exposed to any real ID. Not even Behe, who's the least unscientific of the IDists publishing popular works.So why should we take your opinions seriously ?

quote:

---

A link to the testimony of Michael Behe was provided by Trixie. Nothing I have said about ID is contradicted by him. Absolutely nothing. On the contrary, much of what I have said is confirmed.

---

In Message 197 you wrote

quote:

---

Now how can ID be counter to evolution? ID only questions abiogenesis,

---

That is contradicted by Behe's testimony. Behe is quite clear that he sees ID as an alternative to evolution.The only question is whether you are hopelessly ignorant about ID - or intnetionally misrepresenting it.But to summarise myself.THe ID movement is currently attempting to damage science education by inserting bogus criticisms of evolution. This is the position they fell back on when it became clear that ID could not be taught in schools.If they succeed in this it is highly unlikely that they will rest on their laurels for twenty years. It is far more likely that they will go back to their earlier goal of getting ID taught.And that raises the question of what ID should be taught. Why should YECs be happy with an old-earth view being taught when the Bible tells them otherwise ? And they repesent the grass roots support that ID relies on for it's political-religious campaign.If ID succeeds science lessons are liable to become a political football - subject to the will of whoever can mobilise the masses, regardless of what real science says. That is their strategy. And wy should the YECs stay out of the game ?