2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

Point of fact... it wasn't Tesla who's name Edison refused to say, it was George Westinghouse.

Randman, I have lately been lurking only at this forum because my patience had worn thin, but you have managed to drive me forth from self-imposed exile. Your utter disregard for fact and facile dodging tactics are more then I can bear.You were asked to produce sciencetests DOING WORK in creationism or ID. Let's see how you did...Dr. Van Dyke of NC State. His listed academic interests are mycology, plant-host interactions, and electron microscopy. The following is the list of his published scholarly work from his section of the NC State website... As even a layman can tell, none of those have anything to do with creationism. So, Dr. Van Dyke fails to fulfill the standards asked for, in spite of your claims that he does.On to Dr. Behe at Lehigh. Using his publication list from both the Discovery Institute and Lehigh University webpages, it is plain that since 1999, Behe has done almost exclusively popular, not scientific, publication. He has a long list of articles, consisting mostly of replies to critics in addition to his books. The one exception is a collaboration with a D. W. Snoke in 2004 for an article "Simulating the evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues" which is listed as being "in press" at Protein Sci. I can find no evidence that it was actually published. While Behe is an active advocate of ID, is he doing actual science using it? No.Both your examples fail. Try again.Since I am jumping in so late, I will also briefly reply to the OP. I agree that presenting the facts about science is good. It will stand on it's own, with the exception of those who like their faith more then knowledge. No amount of evidence will change those people's minds. As for "showing problems" with it, that to is fine. Teaching that all science is tentative and there are always horizons of knowledge where there will be disagreement among experts is important.The case for ID and YEC could even be presented. I would suggest doing so right after the basics of the scientific method are taught. Both of those ideologies would be excellent for showing how something does not comply with science. The teacher would simply say "Both ID and YEC require a creator entity about whom information cannot be found and on whom testing cannot be done, so neither are science. Now, let us move on..."

Nice goal post move. Kudos.You put those two names forward, and when it was shown that they didn't work in the way you presented them, suddenly, all science is actually creation science.So, let's try again. You say... Who?

You are again mistaken.First, what is a circular argument? It is an argument in which the conclusion is assumed as a premise. For instance:P1. The bible is divinely inspired to be true.
P2. The bible says God exists.
C. Therefore, God exists.C is necessarily implied in P1, so the argument is circular.Now, to break down the argument you are referencing:P1. Science addresses that which is testable. (By the definition of "science")
P2. Science journals publish only articles which peer review concludes are science and will not publish others.
P3. Both ID and YEC require elements that are not testable.
C1. ID and YEC are not science (By P1 and P3).
C2. Science journals will not publish YEC and ID articles (By P2 and C1).The opinion that journals should not waste their time in reviewing ID and YEC articles for publication is a corollary to the above. The argument is in no way circular.

The answer was inadequate and I showed why. I'm sorry if you don't like that. Perhaps you can reply with something more substantive than "Is too!"Perhaps we should lower the bar for you, Randman. You support Behe as a researcher doing significant work in ID. I will be satisfied if you can produce of reports of actual experimental attempts by Behe to prove an hypothesis that directly supports ID from any even semi-reliable source. We will remove the whole peer-reviewed journal requirement. Is Behe doing anything other then writing popular books and articles?

I replied to this message once before and have waited some time for an answer. To recap, you claimed that Behe was doing science in support of ID. I countered that he seemed to be doing nothing but writing for the popular, non-scientific, press. I asked for an example of an experiment (experimentation being how science is done) from any source that Behe is doing or has done recently.I would like to ask again that you respond or withdraw your claim that Behe is doing science in support of ID.

Well, all I can say is "oops'. Go out of town for a few days and miss all the good stuff...Thanks for the information.