The subject says it all guys. Even when you have certain "scientists" on your side, really when you're a proponent of ID you cannot call yourself a true scientist.
Now, ID people shoot back at that by saying that I can't consider other options, and that I'm violating the big 'ol science book of rules by doing so. However, I think that every wise person here agrees with me. You shouldn't be able replace, or even compete with a theory with 150 years of research and testing behind it, by saying "But look at this pretty flower! How can that be an accident?"
Evolution actually explains why there are flowers, clearly. Plants developed the pretty colors to attract things to land on them (like bees) and spread their pollen to other flowers so that the species can continue. SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, in other words the theory's #1 rule. I bet all you people who have been educated in the issue knew that. Want me to continue? "But what about eyes?" they say.
Eyes allow species to see, and were developed for that purpose. duh. The reason most land and sea animals have them in some way or another is because all species are related in some way or another. For instance, a rabbit is related to a fish because reptiles are the descendants of fish and mammals are the descendants of reptiles, if I'm correct about that. (feel free to go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong.) They seem very complicated, and that's the product of millions of years of evolution. When you have that much time, anything can get pretty complicated. The notion that some god or other supernatural being (although for most ID people, that would be the Christian god) just raised his/her hands and made things the way they are is totally rediculous. Come on.
But you can go ahead and believe that, you have a right too, that's the beauty of the system. Just don't try to impose your ideas on others, please, especially if you have to break or change a rule in order to do it, as the Kansas Board of Ed. has done. Basically, they've removed the rule that says institutionalized (if I spelled that right) scientific theories must be based on observable natural phenomena. ID is not based on testable, observable natural phenomena, its based on assumptions, like "things are just too complicated..." or "how can that be an accident..." or whatever. That's not testable. So its not a theory. Its barely a hypothesis.
Now, I'm going to leave open room for a god or gods because I don't know, and I don't think anyone can know for sure, what started life. What created, if you will, the first single-celled bacterium from which all species are related to in some way or another. Could've been god. Could've been another accident. But noone knows. Just to demonstrate that I'm not an aethiest, and if god can go anywhere in science, its there.
Despite all this overwhelming evidence though against ID and creationism, the debate goes on because fundamentalists (with tax free, donated money I'd imagine) continue to lobby governmental bodies, like the Kansas Board of Education, to be controlled by their ilk, or at least people who agree with them. And as long as that continues, with majorities occaisionally going to the fringe right in some states, the debate will continue because in education-based government bodies, that is always the first thing that fundamentalists do. Downplay evolution. At least, as of late.
This message has been edited by wiseman45, 11-21-2005 01:48 PM
This message has been edited by wiseman45, 11-21-2005 01:49 PM
This message has been edited by wiseman45, 11-21-2005 01:50 PM