Summations Only

Can you explain your position a bit more, please?

Thank you for your response.The problem is that there is no evidence to support what you say. Yes, it's possible, but so is the creation of the universe by, to paraphrase Dr Adequate, an angry purple anteater called Gordon.It doesn't matter if there's logic in your idea, it has to be falsifiable. You have to ask what sort of evidence, if it came to light, would falsify your hypothesis. How would you go about looking for that evidence? That's what science is and does and it is something that ID has notably failed to do.Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that ID can never do it, just that they haven't yet. Instead, we get propaganda, soundbites and a lot of hot air about atheistic "evilutionists". We get "refutations" of the ToE based on a comlete misunderstanding of what the ToE actually says and no amount of explanation as to how they've misunderstood the ToE will deflect them from repeating the same pointless strawman refutations.Science has observed the amazing variety of life on this planet and come up with a testable hypothesis of how that variety of life has come about. Subsequently, much evidence has come to light which fits with this hypothesis. Additionally, no evidence has come to light which falsifies it. It can be falsified, it just hasn't been so far.Compare that with ID. ID also observes the amazing variety of life on this planet and has come up with a hypothesis that it has been designed like that. However, they have no way to detect evidence of design. They can't describe how it would look if it wasn't designed, i.e., they can't suggest a way to falsify their hypothesis. Well, to be more accurate, they did in that they said that more than 2 mutations couldn't happen without design, but when that was shown to happen they moved the goalposts and now it's up to four mutations (this is a very condensed version of what they've done).Instead of testing their hypothesis, they continually try to discredit evolution, but to date their results have supported evolution, even when they've deliberately "loaded the dice" against evolution in their experimental design. For example one experiment on 2 related proteins (common ancestor type thing) tried to turn the 2 proteins into each other. It didn't work so they declared that they couldn't have a common ancestor (again simplistic and brief). Now, me and my cousin share a grandparent. I cannot turn into my cousin and my cousin cannot turn into me. Does that prove that we don't share a grandparent? According to Doug Axe it does because that's the logic he used when he did the work. (See Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway, BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).)There is no way that science and scientists should be flexible to factually incorrect information, poor science, even poorer understanding of scientific concepts, deliberately misleading information, blatant lies and propaganda and sloppy experimental design and analysis. Why should they hold themselves to one standard, yet be flexible enough to allow those with lower standards to claim that they have the same standards?

OK, so you agree that falsifiability is a hallmark of science. It's what scientists have been doing for donkeys' years. Then along come a bunch of people, proposing unfalsifable ideas which have their genesis in religion. They demand that their ideas be taught in science class as a scientific alternative to the ToE, they repeatedly demand to have their beliefs recognised as science, they demand that science be redefined to incude their pet ideas, since their pet ideas do not qualify as science using the ages old and currently used definition of science.They make false claims about their publication record. They make huge goofs in really basic science and even when corrected they continue to repeat their erroneous information. Now, if you or I continued to make a claim after it was shown to be wrong, knowing it was wrong, we'd be accused of deliberate lying and not believed about much else. On top of all that, certain supporters deliberately concocted lies in an attempt to conceal a money trail for school textbooks. These so-called "Christian" supporters repeatedly lied under oath.These efforts divided a community, resulted in children, from Christian families opposed to the teaching of ID, being taunted with cries of "atheist" and even 7 years on the community hasn't recovered. Some families had to move away because of the verbal abuse by ID supporters.Even after this, ID has continued on it's merry way, attempting to shoehorn ID into science classes, regardless of the fact that, by their own admission, ID is NOT science by the current definition of science. They care not a jot that their claims have been debunked time and time again - they repeat their lies, claim all of science is wrong, that scientists are motivated by an atheistic worldview, that the ultimate goal of science is to disprove the existence of God. You yourself equated science and an acceptance of the ToE with atheism in your original post.If you go to a Facebook page called "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" you will see the state of science education currently. You will see what sort of nonsense is spouted as scientific refutation of the ToE. I'm not "conflating" ID with creationism, I don't need to, since the IDists amply demonstrated the creationist roots of their ideas when the term "cdesign proponentsists" was discovered. Now,I have no problem if people choose to believe in ID, I have no problem if they choose to believe in theistic creation. Where I do have a problem is when they lie and obfuscate to hide the creationist roots of ID, when the fail to correct their obvious mistakes and continue to repeat them and when they try to insert it into science classes.On the basis of that sort of behaviour, they deserve no respect from me. A plea to understanding? I think many of us understand them all too well. We refuse to give respect to liars and religious bigots who are prepared to sabotage children's education, divide communities and cause so much upset and conflict to children!!!

Very rarely have I been glad to see the back of someone on this forum, only two spring to mind. It had nothing to do with their views on the debate at hand, but the manner of their posts.I can now add this clown to the list. From the very first post which pleaded for understanding and respect for all camps, his language about science belied utter hypocrisy and he oozed arrogance. He had no intention of showing any respect for science or scientists. More than anything he seemed to be trying to goad people into responding in a way he would disaprove of. It didn't really work.He was left to manufacture a dishonest reason for departure and presumably we'll see this accusation of his spouted elsewhere. I really wonder if his intent all along was to find some way to denigrate this site.It's been a strange thread.