Intelligent Design == Human Design?

Why should we include God in science and our description of how life works and has changed over time? Why should ID be included in science education? Which scientists are using ID to do original research? Can you point to one scientific peer reviewed paper where a scientist has used ID to design experiments and refine conclusions? Can you point to a single clinical trial of a new drug that was developed using ID? Can you name a single scientist that has submitted and NIH research grant that includes methodologies used for testing ID? What use, other than religious indoctrination, is there for teaching ID in the science classroom or in scientific research? False. Only when there is evidence of ID should it be considered. You are using a negative argument which is a logical fallacy. Assertions made without evidence can be rejected without evidence. That's the way science works.

Which rules, and what evidence do you have that they have been changed? We aren't talking about Possibility Class. We are talking about Science Class. In science there are these things called evidence, hypotheses, experiments, and theories. For some reason you need something other than possibilities for science. A man who ascribes supernatural magic to things he does not know will never know more. Then do the science and show that it is more than a potential. Only then is it appropriate for science class. For my existence? None. I exist. Wow, whopper of a conclusion.All you have offered is hot air. No evidence. No research. Not even a testable hypothesis. Nothing. This is why ID does not belong in the science classroom. It isn't science. It is religious indoctrination. I would assume you are looking for it, and you still can't tell us what this evidence is. You can't even tell us what experiments we can run to test ID "theory". You can't point to a single peer reviewed research paper that contains original ID research. You can't point to a single scientist who is seeking funding based on ID research. And yet, you want ID taught in SCIENCE class even though ID has produced ZERO SCIENCE. Cart before the horse? I didn't say that ID is a new type of science. What I am asking for is a hypothesis, null hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion dealing with ID. You know, SCIENCE!!! Why is that so hard to understand?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

No it is not. Science is a method.Observations are observations. Science is a method by which you construct an hypothesis (and an accompanying null hypothesis), construct an experiment that will test that hypothesis, and then make observations. Science is not "Well, this is a possibility". If the single requirement for teaching something in science class was that it is possible then we would be teaching all sorts of solipsistic nonsense. We would also have to teach Last Thursdayism, as one example. Do IDers do experiments which test ID hypotheses? If so, what are they?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

All you presented was a long list of unsupported assertions and special pleading. Projection much? The observations show a lack of a supernatural deity. It seems that you are unwilling to accept this and instead assert that God exists without any evidence whatsoever. If I am wrong, please point out the observations of God. What evidence? Or better yet, what evidence would prove that God does NOT exist in your view?

Then let's use your arguments to see if it really works. I will use empirical data just like you.E=mc^2, therefore leprechauns exist. See how I did that? I used one of the best known facts in science to show that leprechauns exist. Can you please show me where I went wrong in this argument?