Summations Only

Why? One is science one isn't. Why would we want to teach religion in a science class? Shall we teach the ToE in religious education classes or Sunday School? How about metalwork in cookery classes or maths in history classes?I have a better suggestion, lets teach maths in maths class, history in history clases, religion in religion classes and science in science classes. There, sorted!I suppose Kitzmiller-v-Dover didn't make it to your planet. Just in case you missed the nub of the matter, it can be summarised as follows, Religion is NOT science and therefore has NO place in science classes.Have you read any of the Dover transcript? Have you read the Dover judgement?

I'll take that as a no, you haven't read any of the Dover transcripts nor the judgement, otherwise you wouldn't have posted the nonsense you did. Absolutely priceless, hilarious! The whole nub of the argument at Dover was that ID was not creationism yet here you are conflating the two terms! The claim that ID was not creationism was dead in the water when the term "cdesign proponentsists" was discovered in drafts of "Of Pandas and People".Neither creationism nor ID can be described as scientific explanations of existence. As others have pointed out, both start with a conclusion then try to either shoehorn evidence in or manufacture evidence by misrepresentation, by garbling totally misunderstood science or by blatant lying.Let's see exactly what the conservative Judge Jones said in his judgement. Here are some comments from his conclusion. You left out a crucial part - evidence. It doesn't matter how logical a proposition is, it has to be supported by evidence. Our understanding of the physical world is based on evidence and is constantly changing as we discover new information. Anway, who are you referring to when you say "our understanding"? You see the one thing most "cdesign proponentsists" and creationists have in common is their abysmal understanding of very basic science. If man had used that understanding in trying to make progress, we'd never have landed men on the moon.Your example of CSIs using science to discovered what happened at a crime scene is faulty. If they used the methodology of ID or creationism they would immediately decide who the perpetrator was, then go about collecting evidence to support that conclusion while disregarding any evidence to the contrary. That is not science.So, yes, I'd say that many people can refute your "logic". ID is not science and should not be taught in the science arena. You really should go and read at least the Dover judgement, but the entire transcript would be better; this will give you a better idea of exactly why ID isn't science.

I suggest you spend some time reading the Dover transcript before you dismiss it out of hand as abstract observations of a judge. A simple google search will bring up the entire transcript and judgement. You'll find that the judge looked at a heck of a lot of evidence before concluding that ID is not science. You might find it an interesting read.Can you point me towards any investigations carried out by the ID crowd which provide support for ID? You seem to be claiming that there is research out there, yet in years of asking we've yet to be provided with quality papers, peer reviewed and published in the scientific literature. Even Behehad to admit that he hadn't done any research into ID.There's a crucial difference in the approaches of science and ID. Yes, both try to answer the how and why questions, but when looking at the world around us, science asks "How did the world end up the way it is?" while ID asks "How did the designer make the world the way it is?". They begin from the assmption of a designer and work back. If you don't understand why this is the wrong way to go about scientific rsearch then you have no business declaring what is and isn't science since your grasp of the subject is woeful.Can you explain to me what you mean by the following?

I think I see the problem. You haven't a clue what falsifiabe means. You do know that science is allowed to say "I don't know", don't you? Tbh, I think you've managed to demonstrate that you haven't a clue - fullstop.

Oh for the love of Pete.....1. How did man end up with the body he has?2. Why does man have the body he has?What's the difference in the two questions? You're so hung up on this false dichotomy of how and why. It might make sense if you're talking about a crime - the how and the why are two different things, but that's because the how describes the mechanism and the why would describe motive.Natural mechaisms don't have a motive, whereas ID may do. You can't ascribe a motive to death by natural causes any more than you can ascribe a motive to natural mechanisms.

You weren't talking about people you were telling us that the ToE doesn't tell us why, just the how. You were telling us that people were only asking the how, but not the why.The ToE isn't people. It has no motive. I, and the scientists I know, have a single motive - to find answers to questions and we have a vested interest in finding the right answers because future work may depend them.Jar's match isn't people, it has no motive, the how and the why end up being the same.

That's all it's intended to do. The ToE answers the question of how life is as it is on this small world. It doesn't claim to answer other questions. Neither does the fact that it doesn't answer other questions mean that it's wrong.The question "What does 2+2 equal" gets an answer of 4. I can dismiss as irrelevant the fact that the answer to "how did Saturn's rings form" is not 4 because the two questions are unrelated and 2+2 will still equal 4.If this is not addressing what you meant, can you clarify what "The TOE only resolves answers here on this small world, it does not answer the question of how overall" is intended to mean?

Just to add to the point PaulK makes, the book "Of Pandas and People" began its life using the term "creationists" to describe the people who believed what was being proposed in the book.After a court judgement which ruled that Creationism had no place in the science class (I can't remember the details offhand) the book underwent an edit. Wherever the word "creationists" had been used, the term "design proponents" was inserted instead.During the Dover trial it was revealed that a draft had been found where the term "creationists" had been replaced with "cdesign proponentists" which is a combination of the two terms! Hurrah, a transitional had been found! This proved beyond doubt that the book had originally been intended to teach creationism. It was also shown that very little of the original text had been changed, it still used the same examples and arguments to demonstrate intelligent design as it had to demonstrate creationism.I think this demonstrates the true face of intelligent design. It is an attempt to sneak creationism into classrooms as science, to subvert the judgement that teaching creation in schools violated the constitution because it injected religion into schools.The people behind this movement are creationists and everybody knows this. Heck, a member of the Dover board, in making his case for intelligent design to be taught in science classes said word to the effect "2,000 years ago someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him? ... "That's the reason that creationists have latched on to intelligent design - it's creationism in a very transparent disguise.Edited by Trixie, : To degarble a really, really garbled sentence.

Your question answers itself. If it's religious in nature it isn't science, it's religious and should therefore not be taught as science, but as religious belief.No-one said anything about barring it from public viewing so I've no idea where you got that idea from.

It matters in that if something isn't science it shouldn't be taught in science class. Or do we start teaching cookery in metalwork, maths in religious education? I've said it before, but it seems to be such an alien idea that you don't get it - maths belongs in maths class, cookery belongs in cookery class, religion belongs in religion class and science belongs in science class.

So knowing nothing about the ID movement, you still have the nerve to suggest it be taught as science in a science class. I suggest you read The Wedge document and at least look at the Dover transcript to see what you're advocating as fit for science class. So right there you admit that there is no difference between creationism and ID. So much for all the IDists who've spent so much time and effort telling us that ID is not creationism repackaged. It seems that in this you are in complete agreement with Judge Jones who presided over the Dover trial and declared that ID was creationism and therefore had no place in a science class. And right there you make a grave error. Science has not attempted to show that ID and creationism are different. In fact the opposite is true, science has argued all along that ID has no place in the science class because it is creationism. No-one with even a passing knowledge of the ToE claims that if it is true it precludes a creator or designer. The ToE says absolutely nothing about the existence of a creator or designer. It provides a natural mechanism that can account for the diversity we see around us. The evidence which supports the ToE suggests that a creator or designer is not required. Give that the ToE doesn't deal with origins of life in the first place, I'm stuggling to understand how it could preclude a creator anyway. Since the ToE doesn't deal with how life began, I think you're the one becoming confused. The ToE only describes how the variety of life arose. It's ID which makes claims about origins and the source of variation. Nope! How can you say that the explanations are acceptable as evidence of the explanation! Explanations are not evidence, although they try to reach a conclusion based on evidence. You keep saying this yet I've never seen you provide that evidence. Your insistence on Law, Order and Purpose doesn't constitute evidence, it is a conclusion. I'd like to see the evidence on which you base this conclusion. Once more you make claims of evidence for a designer yet provide none. Don't you think it's time you started producing some? Oh and parroting "Law, Order and Purpose" is not evidence. I'd love to see the evidence and data gathered by ID and your ToLOP. You know, the evidence and data that supports these two and doesn't support the ToE. We keep hearing about it, but it never surfaces.

Wrong, as you would know if you bothered to look at the information I pointed you at. Why on earth would you think that your version should be taught? So far you're the only one that's held this position Are you so arrogant that you think schools should teach what you and you alone think? Thank you. You again made my case. Creationism is not allowed to be taught as science in US schools because it's considered unconstitutional. If ID and creationism are the same thing, as you so loudly state, then ID doesn't make it past the classroom door. For the love of Pete, that's always been my position and it's always been science's position. You're the one who tried to imply that it wasn't science's position. Wrong again. So the evidence on which you base your conclusion that Law, Order and Purpose exist is your conclusion that L, O and P exist. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but conclusions are not evidence, they are....conclusions! Can you demonstrate the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No. That's why your approach here is not science. Since you're refusing to tell us what the data for L,O and P are, I have no way of telling if it's the same or different from the evidence for ToE. You've also not given any details of investigations used by IDists, yet you expect me to show how I think it differs. No-one can agree or disagree with information which hasn't been given. Is it a state secret? The results of this mythical investigation are not the same as the results and subsequent conclusions from evidence gathered which supports the ToE, otherwise you'd be supporting the ToE. You must think you've got further information and evidence, but you've yet to share it with us.So far, all anyone would be able to tell a classroom full of kids is "Dawn Bertot, a poster on an internet forum states that Law, Order and Purpose exist and the evidence that supports his statement is the statement itself. Therefore the ToE is falsified by his standards and an intelligent being designed all life. The End" How can we when you've yet to give any information on your method of investigation, other than parroting L,O and P? Saying something loud enough and repetitively does not turn it into fact. So far that's the only method you've demonstrated and I'm being charitable in asking for details of your method of investigation, rather than just concluding that there is no other method than the parrot method. You haven't demonstrated what your's is, let alone demonstrated it to be valid. You can't keep your method a secret then claim that no-one can refute it. Of course they bloody can't, they have no idea what it is or what you're wittering about.Please supply details of your method, the evidence collected and the conclusions drawn (although we know the conclusions already) before asking anyone to refute it.And that, my friend, isn't science.

The reason that you and I got into this discussion is because you suggested that ID should be taught in science class and that's what we're supposed to comment on. It's up to you to support your position that it does belong there. So far you've failed to do that, you've provided no details of what you call your evidence, nor your methods. You keep claiming that you've provided these, but you haven't. Unless you're prepared to do so, instead of saying "Well it looks ordered so someone must have given it order", this conversation is pointless.I'm expecting you to cry "Victory" because I'm not wasting any more time on dishonest debate tactics. You may be a great debater (according to you), but that means squat when facts are involved. No matter how well you debate that the facts are different, it doesn't matter, because they'll still be the same at the end.I'm not the only one demanding that you produce the information which you want us to examine. If you want it examined, then produce it already! Otherwise this is pointless.Jar is spot on with his comment.ABE Earlier Drosophila tried to explain to you why the two ideas are mutually exclusive and you disagreed. You seem to think that they can exist together. They can't. One states that an intelligent designer is required and the other states that an intelligent designer is NOT required. By the way, who is your intelligent designer?Edited by Trixie, : Final para added

Coyote, he's already stated in this thread that there is no difference between ID and creationism, so he is, in fact, in total agreement with Judge Jones and the Dover judgement. You couldn't make this up!

Given that you have not once made reference to the judgement "pointing out its mistakes" prior to this post, this is news to me. You've stated more than once that you have no idea about what was argued in court, you've assumed that the argument in favour of teaching "creation" in science class was wrongly put, to paraphrase you. I hate to tell you this, but they made a better attempt than you have here and it still fell flat. At least, on occasion, they did answer questions put to them.Until you supply the evidence which many posters have repeatedly asked you for, you are failing to make your case. Instead you're trying to use a smoke screen to hide the lack of substance in your argument.