Why should ID be taught in science classes...

Welcome to the fray Aaron Or someone who wants YOU to believe it is equally useless. See the wedge document:
Wedge strategy - WikipediaEnjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks. And under that (wedge inspired) regime we could look forward to a century chalk full of startling advancements in... prayer and... scripture memorizing skills.... woo hoo.And people say America will continue to be a superpower.

Partly true, then again... we could simply mandate for all teachers and people alike to stop talking our of there asses when educating our children. This way, we won't mislead anyone into thinking we have the answers to the big question. Otherwise, if were going to throw ideas out there, you might as well throw in ID because in my opinion, it scores better at providing answers than anything else I have heard.

If I understand what you're saying, you're suggesting that ID is better at answering "the big question" (a euphemism for questions of ultimate origins, I presume) than science. Let's just grant as true that ID actually is better at answering "the big question" than science just for the sake of discussion.The focus of science isn't "the big question" but understanding the natural world. The objection to the teaching ID in science class is that it isn't really focused on the natural world but on the larger questions of ultimate origins, and that it therefore isn't science. But to the extent that ID might bring to bear methods and insights that help us better understand the natural world it would qualify as science.So whether ID should be taught in science class depends upon what qualities ID might possess that could qualify it as science?--Percy

I guess the idea of ID being taught would take place where unverifiable theories are concerned. Personally, I think the theory of evolution(having matured) has lost favor as the answer to life's origin. I say this, in the sense where life equals matter and not as in organic life(as it were).Picking off the top of the pile, I would use the big bang theory as an example. In a case such as this, the general consensus is that all thing originated from a single point. However, few if any teachers will discuss the possibilities that the big bang was planned of endued by a force other than... unknown randomness supported by yet more unknown randomness and so on and so forth.

Hi EpicThought! No Nebraska man didn't come into it but Piltdown man did. They wanted to present it as evidence for evolution but the trial was not about whether evolution was true -it was about whether it was legal to teach it.Ultimately nobody got a chance to show off their icon -and it was a good thing as it was shown to be a fraud 40 years after it made its initial appearance.Fooled lots of people in those 40 years though! And well you shouldn't -since nobody alive was there when it all began - any stories of origins are made up stories (except of course the Bible if it is true but that's another thread.)
I agree - teach evolution and ID (only the scientific evidence supporting each.)

You have been asked and asked for the evidence supporting ID.Instead of offering it up, which it is clear you aren't going to do, how about you explain why you aren't going to offer any evidence for ID at all?In fact, if you don't in the next day or so you will get another few hours of suspension. And continue to get those suspensions every time you post in a science thread without at least an explanation of why you won't offer evidence even while you keep mentioning it.

Hey, Beretta, we have some unfinished business.Come to the new topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? and show us just how superior your ID science is to real science. If you want it taught to our kids, then you need to show us just how it works. And just who was it who discovered that Piltdown was a hoax? Was it a creationist? They were around back then, you know, lots of them. No, it wasn't. It was scientists. And what was the result? Piltdown was immediately dropped by the scientific community. Maybe not by some textbooks, but then those weren't and still aren't written by scientists, but rather by professional textbook writers who usually get it wrong.What do we see when creationists' hoaxes are exposed? Are they ever exposed by creationists? No, they are not. Again, it is scientists who expose creationist hoaxes. Does the creationist community drop the exposed hoaxes? No, they just ignore the truth and keep telling the same old lies as if nothing had happened. For decades after those hoaxes had been exposed as the complete frauds they are.Science works. Creationism doesn't.OBTW, the year after Osborne made a subsequent discovery that proved that his "Nebraska Man" was not an anthropoid ape, he published a retraction and the scientific community immediately dropped "Nebraska Man" -- not that everyone had accepted the original claim anyway. Only the creationists keep it alive in order to spin their own lies about it.Science works. Creationism doesn't. What "scientific evidence supporting {ID}"? Care to present any?Start by going to the new topic and presenting how ID's supernatural-based science is supposed to work.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Fix Link

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

I have no idea -I only heard that the discoverer of Piltdown man didn't like showing the original so only casts were allowed to be seen by other scientists.That's quite often the case apparently.
The point is from the creationist side is that without that world view you're not as likely to put those bones together and see !a missing link! -ok the flipside is if there ever was a real one, creationists would be unlikely to find it but at least we won't be making men out of monkeys anytime soon.Again I am not implying scientific dishonesty working here (though someone perpetrated the fraud for some purpose -maybe to get people to believe in evolution??), it is interpretation by different worldviews. The same old, 'no facts speak for themself, they have to be interpreted according to some view of the world'.There are only two main ways of looking at it -creation or evolution -even given different religions -it still boils down to these two.
Evolutionists tend to deny the fact that they interpret according to their worldview, creationists explain that the controversy exists precisely because of the underlying assumptions that each group has. I don't know of any -when? Or else what evolutionists have decided are hoaxes are only considered to be that from the position of their worldview and creationists don't accept their explanations perhaps.I don't believe they would keep anything that was genuinely proven to be wrong -that would not help their case in the least.I'd like some examples of their hoaxes to look into for interests sake.Science works -evolution in general doesn't.Only one small portion of the overall picture called evolution works and that is the variation and natural selection within a range part -no other part is provable. Creation science accepts that part as a reality of life; it is the only part of 'evolution' that can be called science. I would think that they keep it alive in order to demonstrate the interpretation angle of how science works and for no other reason.Thanks for the link -I will get there asap.Well that link got me nowhere. Thanks again. Edited by Beretta, : Further comment

I look forward to reading your response in the other thread, since I don't know anything about ID.Try to keep it clear and concise, just like it would be taught in science class. I'm not a scientist.

Beretta,
You really are being very stubborn. Anyone who followed the should creationism be taught in schools? thread will know that you are in favour of teaching ID. You have now adequately explained this on the new thread. Your position is now clear, and since any further pursuit of this topic is going to boil down to;
a; "ID is great and evolution is rubbish."
b; "No, evolution is great and ID is rubbish."
a+b; "Show your evidence!"
I suggest that you go ahead and show your evidence on the appropriate thread, i.e., So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work?.
Continuing to post a rehash of the same argument over and over just makes you look as though you have no evidence (which of course you do not). Several people have posted examples of the evidence for evolution, but you generally seem to prefer to ignore them. When you have responded it has been with arguments attempting to knock down this evidence. So far, you have not succeeded, mostly because you refuse to challenge the evidence face-on, preferring to just waffle and repeat yourself instead.
It is well past time for you to present your evidence for ID in an appropriate thread. If you cannot or will not, then please refrain from clogging up the forum with repetitious waffle. You have a real opportunity here to teach all of us ignorant evo-freaks what the real situation is, so why are you hiding your light under a bushel?
Shit or get off the pot Beretta.Oh, and by the way, How about the miracle of the banana? Or are you still sticking with that one?

---

Mutate and Survive

The only point there is what is the possibility that bananas were created for us to eat? Random mutation or purpose? Forget the modern banana and the original banana -they're all still bananas -perhaps with a little loss of information from the original -but noways is it going anywhere. Certainly there's no proof that it came from anywhere but the original created banana.How did it come to be? What was it before it was a banana?Variation and natural selection only work on whatever is already there -created, you know. How did it come to be in the first place and is it so beyond the evolutionist's worldview to accept that maybe it didn't mutate from something else?Where's the hoax -do you have anymore? Edited by Beretta, : No reason given.

Hi Purpledawn,
I'd love to get to this link -'the supernatural science whatever' but two people have given it to me in their posts and it doesn't get me anywhere when I click on it.Try it, it doesn't work!

List of all topics, with ones with the latest posts first:
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: All Topics -->http://EvC Forum: All Topics -->EvC Forum: All Topics< !--UE-->
You can also click on "ALL TOPICS"The thread in question:
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY) -->http://EvC Forum: So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY) -->EvC Forum: So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)< !--UE-->
So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)It is relatively easy to find any topic, no matter how old with just a little bit of knowledge of how to find things -- the kind of thing you need to know how to do to substantiate positions.Sheeesh.Edited by RAZD, : added info

Here is the hoax; Taken from here ://http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/atheist.html
and here is the original claim you made about it; Here it is in the original context http://EvC Forum: Your reason for accepting evolution -->EvC Forum: Your reason for accepting evolutionand here is the banana that god made Doesn't look very pleasing to the taste buds, does it?
Your claim has been shown to be false, so you have moved the goalposts. From initially claiming that the edibility and defencelessness of the banana made it appear to be designed, you have moved on to citing the banana as an example of limited variability within fixed kinds. Please try and keep from getting your creationists dogmas muddled up in this way, or better still, follow the (working) links provided by RAZD (thanks for that; the other ones worked in preview)and make your case. I'm not going to help you clog up the thread with off-topic back and forth (again). Put up or shut up.

---

Mutate and Survive