20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum

However, allowing children to see that it is not necessarily categorically proven that macroevolution by random mutation is 'truth'is a very good idea -no matter what you think is true.
Allow them to think rather than rely on materialistic dogma -that's the point.

Materialistic dogma is actually the same as philisophical naturalism/materialism -ie. you believe that all things can be explained by internal factors -matter is all there is -there is nothing acting from outside the system (supernatural)so everything must be from within. This tends to be equated with science and rationalism but is it?
You don't know that that is true -you assume it and then base everything on that assumption.But if you're wrong???What if there is a supernatural element to creation? If there was, you would predict (according to the Biblical version) that all creatures vary within a range but have limits and that fossils will show up suddenly and be fully developed, (not becoming anything new), just there.They would remain in a recognizable form for the duration of their appearance in the fossil record and then would become extinct (vanish from the record) or be pretty much the same form as what we see today ie.clams = clams = clams (no matter where we find them -alive or dead and fossilized). That's what you would predict if there is a supernatural creator outside the system.So you have two possibilities -you can't prove either, but you have to decide based on the evidence and not on your preconceptions.Philisophical naturalism, if it is true, would predict that simple organisms came about by natural processes that just happened to organize themselves into a form that has life. These simple organisms would them mutate along the way and natural selection would select and retain those mutations that had an advantage of some sort that allowed them to survive better.With time, according to the theory, simple organisms would become more complex by these chance mutations coupled with natural selection acting on them.
By this means, you would predict that organisms would gradually change from one form into another by a gradual process with small morphological changes occurring incrementally along the way.So you have two philosophies. neither provable, both making predictions about what we should find if the one or the other were true.So it may seem rational and scientific to you to assume no external forces. You may even say well we can't prove there's a supernatural element in created things so, in the absence of proof, we assume the other is true (also in the absence of proof).Instead we should be saying, what are the predictions that each belief system makes and which one better fits the evidence?One thing is certain, one is right and the other is wrong.So should we teach the material belief system as fact if there's a possibility that the other is true???What ID is saying is that evolutionists are dogmatically insisting that their belief system is true and factual and they will not allow the evidence against that system to be taught.No-one is saying that the other (intelligent design) should replace evolution, only that both should be allowed to be considered as possible scenarios in the absence of absolute proof for either.So there you have it -critical thinking replacing dogma.

Please see Message 56 as a clarification of what I'm saying.
I agree, no dogma in the absence of proof.Two competing hypotheses and their evidences presented as possibilities, neither to be held dogmatically since neither is proven.

Just because it wasn't mentioned specifically in that particular message does not mean that anyone has forgotten it -please see Message 56 as further clarification of my point.So just to be clear there is no mental block and no ID proponent has ever denied natural selection as fact -they just don't believe that natural selection combined with mutation have any sort of creative ability. No we should show the historical evidence for the holocaust, photos, newspapers,historical documentation, eye-witness accounts and then mention (possibly) that some people deny it despite the evidence presented. Then leave it to them to decide whether it happened or not. Edited by Beretta, : Incomplete

You're right, there's far more evidence for ID than for evolution -evolution just happens to be the consensus for the moment.Try looking at the fossil record for a start -what does it really say??? Yes science has repeatable, testable evidence for things that can be tested and repeated but unfortunately for evolution, it is an historical concept and by its very nature can be neither tested nor repeated so lets not fool ourselves. Technological advances derive from real science while evolution (the big picture excluding mutation and natural selection)is not real science, it is an hypothesis and a bad one at that. Irrelevant -what is relevant is the question of whether we evolved from pond scum by chance or whether we were created by an intelligence outside the system that we can observe. Who the creator is, is outside the realm of ID. True, they definately can't all be right BUT one may be right. They could all be wrong but then so could evolution be wrong. We can only work with the scientific evidence for and against the two hypotheses -beyond that would be a theological debate which is outside the scientific debate and so irrelevant here. That there was a creator is a different argument to who that creator is.

Well I don't know how that is possible if he believes in irreducible complexity and that certain systems could not have evolved. Personally, I believe the creationist position is well supported but I am arguing the ID position because it is not a theological argument as it sticks to the scientific evidence supportive of one position or the other-intelligent design or random mutation and natural selection as an explanation for everything. No actually you are only telling them (if you even bother) that some people believe there never was a holocaust but by showing the evidence for the holocaust you are showing how patently absurd that position is.The holocaust has historical records and eyewitness accounts whereas evolution is based on a belief about origins that cannot be directly verified, observed or tested. The evidence for and against are based on inference to the best possible explanation not on eyewitness accounts so you cannot even compare the two arguments. No; present the evidence for evolution and the evidence for intelligent design and the negative evidence against each argument and let them critically analyse the argument-no need to take a dogmatic stand on something you cannot prove.
Technological advance will carry on unhindered in the absence of a dogmatic stand on our origins.

It's not that clear cut in the fossil record in any case and there's no reason why all these things shouldn't be found if there is a designer behind it.What we do predict is that everything will be fully formed wherever you find them, no creatures will be found with a leg converting into a wing and half way there. All these most necessary critical links are missing so we have to leave it to our imaginations - and that is what is wrong with the neo-Darwinist position.
The designer position makes more sense of the sudden appearance of complicated body forms with no recognizable predecessors. It also makes more sense of the general stasis observed in the fossil record.Evolution is a huge leap of faith when you consider that things like bacteria are pretty much the same as they ever were and clams are still clams wherever you find them and so many things are relatively unchanged despite the fact that evolutionists would have us believe that while certain creatures remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, other one-celled organisms morphed into human beings in that same time period.That is as good as a fairy tale and if you want to believe it, then just go ahead but don't try and force it down everyone's throat in school and other learning institutions as if it has been proven to have occurred.It is far from proven -it is unprovable as well as highly unlikely by the look of the evidence.Just because it may be the consensus opinion in the meantime does not make it more likely, it only makes it more dogmatically insisted apon despite the evidence. Generations have been brainwashed into this view which is why it is the consensus.It's time for an increase in our critical thinking skills. That is not what you would predict. If there was a flood, sea creatures would be the first to be buried in the massive upheavals that would follow -that accounts for 95% of the fossils found. After that you would get variable ability to attempt to escape which would account for the later presence of the land animals and human remains.Whatever drowned and was not covered in sediment would rot or be eaten so no evidence there.There is scientific evidence for sedimentation in layers from big catastrophes so thick layers of sedimentation has very little to do with time and probably nothing whatsoever to do with millions of years.There is loads of contradictory evidence on that. Yes No, in all likelihood they will be laughing at you. Meaning you believe there is no other explanation other than naturalism (illogical starting point based on faith in your initial premise)and you methodically go out to keep trying to prove it to yourself and everybody else. I understand the rationale behind that and I do not believe that there is a single ID supporter that does not understand the rationale behind looking for natural explanations but the problem we have is that if a supernatural explanation is true, then explaining what may be supernatural in origin my using an naturalistic explanation would be wrong because it would not be true.Nobody wants to use pie in the sky and pretend it is a good alternative -they believe, according to the evidence that exists, that the complexity we see in life cannot have arisen naturally or, alternatively, is a most unlikely explanation. The most unlikely scenario arises precisely because of advances in what we know about life comparative to Darwin's time.We believe that what was a perfectly possible explanation is no longer acceptable - so it's not going backwards but forwards -questioning the accepted paradigm in the light of increased knowledge. But if evolution is true, what did this supernatural element do -nothing? Well yes perhaps but that 'useful' does not include the macro concept of evolution where it apparently explains our origins.
Think about it -can we use it for anything useful? In that I don't include minor variation and natural selection which nobody doubts in any case.i'm talking about the concept of life apparently coming about naturally from non-living chemicals and simpler types of organisms giving rise to more complex organisms. What useful thing comes from that in terms of technological advancement?
Ask any scientist where it has actually helped him in devising any new plan about anything.In what way has it actually advanced science? Now that is clearly ridiculous which is why this whole argument seems to boil down to a fundamental misunderstanding between the opposing worldviews and of what we are actually trying to achieve. No we want to stop burdening them with the lack of critical thinking that is going on when only one perspective is allowed to be heard -dogma in the absence of clear unassailable proof. So now supposing that what we believe to be true is true, we have an explanation but is it the correct explanation or is it AN explanation based on material assumptions which may or may not be true? Why be so scared to pursue other lines of thought? What could we lose from critically thinking about the alternatives? Its like forcing communistic dogma down everyone's throats. Which is exactly what we are trying to do.

Yes, that's true -so lets give it a whirl. I predict it will be evolution they'll reject given an alternative possibility for one in their lives. But how will we know if we don't allow for that little bit of critical thinking??? That's just dumb of course -silly comparison -we would only teach those things that have some scientific backing ok?

Oh well I must have missed something -where's your proof that simpler life forms categorically had to have evolved into more complex life forms? Yes explain how, if naturalistic processes explain our arrival, we could have originated from something other than the supposed primordial soup after it rained on the rocks for millions of years?
Oh, I see, we didn't come from pond scum after all; we came from the minerals washed out of the rocks over those millions of years; in other words our earliest ancestor is actually a rock! No, real observable scientifically provable processes vs pure imagination actually.

Yes perhaps he just went wrong on the common ancestry part or has not been fully educated on its shortcomings.He should come around -he has a brain. These things are in completely different categories -people were there versus no-one was there. Somewhat different don't you think?If evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.
As for morphology as a basis of determination -in your dreams maybe -that is pure conjecture and the genetic record - results have to be interpreted so are subject to huge prejudice on the part of evolutionary fundamentalists.
Three strikes. According to your prejudiced friends it is empty but you should really do the research and see what they are saying yourself.Lack of education on the matter is entirely self-imposed if you leave it to fellow evolutionists to fill you in. What evidence? I thought you said there wasn't any? Well good for them for finding it.I think a large part of what they are teaching is the evidence against evolution which is the part that really did it for me. I didn't realize we were that far along but if it's not quite time to pop open the champagne, it soon should be. Maybe that will be the wake-up call you need to actually read the literature rather than relying on your friends for information about the state of the science.

Well as is usual with evolutionists, you fail to even begin to see what the argument is about and the reason for that -you rely on your evolutionary friends and magazines and internet sites to inform you. They criticize and jeer and say the most ludicrous things about "pseudo-science" and you believe them. Try getting a grip on the real argument - it's not so scary. Again you're missing the point -while praying may be a good idea, we are talking about science and nobody has any intention on changing it to anything else. Get a grip. That is another of the special evolutionary pleas, this theocracy thing -again you are not getting the point at all.While this is common amongst evolutionists, it may comfort you to find out the real story because the terror tactics of the evolutionary regime, their manner of frightening their followers half to death about the intentions of their opposition is really getting beyond a joke.It's time to grow up.
This argument is not about going backward, it is about going forward and loosing the shackles of the "evolution is true, evolution is fact" chants of the deluded 'consensus' followers.Edited by Beretta, : Completion

There is no illusion of evolution though -it's just a belief system with so many billions of missing links. In fact,the picture looks worse now than it did for Darwin.
Designers do tend to use common elements in their various designs.For evolution,we still need things like evidence for change from reptilian bones to bird bones and from reptilian circulation to bird circulation etc. - those sorts of little details that make the whole thing so hard for some of us to swallow. Nice variations in design but hardly evidence of wholesale conversion from fish to amphibian -you still have to believe it is possible. I'd guess that the ancestors and descendants of fish with leg-like fins with ankles had the same thing and are a type of fish.
Your belief system would lead you to conclude something else of course but again there are all those billions of necessary missing links.And what would drive this conversion in the absence of some kind of a plan? Necessity producing wishful thinking producing positive random mutations capable of producing just the right morphological changes necessary to overcome the next hurdle in the evolutionary progress? Makes no sense to me.And its not because I wasn't brought up believing this stuff. I changed my mind. Such as? Serving as both is not the same as a wing if it has no feathers and the standard wing apparatus.But I'd love to see your examples so that I can see if it would be somewhat convincing. There's actually a big range within the ID movement -the common factor is that they all believe that random purposeless mutation is not a satisfactory explanation for the look of design everywhere within living systems. Well you know, simple becomes more complex so.....where did humans originally derive from if you take it back 600 million years or so? Except for those that watch cartoons and National Geographic and go to schools -there they talk constantly about millions of years as 'fact'.I reckon that would be the predominant form of brainwashing that church couldn't even begin to compete with on a minute to minute time comparison in the average child's upbringing Actually mostly they have recovered from being evolutionists. Apart from all of them simultaneously believing in the 'hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary change' -which they receive from their schools and TV sets. Or the end of 'evolution is a fact'. Doesn't really help when you're the first to be caught in the sediment landslide.

Well if you'd be more specific about the 'ignorant crap' it would help. Not everything I believe would I advocate being taught in a science classroom. In fact if they just taught the evidence for evolution and the evidence against the major icons of evolution that are taught regularly in classrooms, I would be totally satisfied. But they seem to be too scared to allow children to doubt the official dogma.Surely if it were such rubbish, it would go away in time? Instead it just keeps gaining momentum...

Well I know what I think but that's not the point -science would not need to go into that -then it would turn into theology and nobody intends that -that's just the rubbish evolutionists sprout to one another to keep every other evolutionist in the dark about the real argument. I've said before and I'll say it again -neither side has proof nor can have, the argument is about history and what happened. We all work with the facts -this looks like that, this was found there etc but we have different ways of interpreting the facts. We happen to believe that the ID interpretation of the facts makes more sense.

Well we humans are a lot dumber, we know what's going on inside a cell but we can't seem to make even the simplest of life from scratch.If mutation is happening all the time and entropy is going on all the time, isn't it just possible that what you are seeing now is the corrupted version of the original creation? Maybe that's why the design starts to look shabby. Well if evolution is what it seems to be according to the evolutionist, what would there be for the creator to do? Nothing it seems. So you see God is removed from the equation just by presupposing material causes for everything and that is making a statement about God. We could all explain it but is it true? We have to make it up from what we can observe because nobody was there to see it happen. Well there you are you see. If you can look around and see the things on this earth and conclude that no intelligence was required to produce intelligence and beauty and variety, then you are (as the Bible says) without excuse. Wow, I somehow doubt that atheists were responsible for that - you're actually talking about the positive side-effects of a Christian mindset.Atheists are all about survival of the fittest aren't they?