Summations Only

The inherent contradiction has already been noted, so I'll just explain the real reason why ID shouldn't be taught in science class. Science is a consensus activity. Accepted scientific theories form out of the scientific consensus. High school science curriculums are responsible for teaching the current consensus. Because ID is not part of that consensus, it shouldn't be taught in science class.But one might ask, is it therefore as unacceptable to teach string theory as it is to teach ID, since string theory is not at this point in time a part of the scientific consensus, even though it is an area of intense scientific study. Why is it okay for a science teacher, in response to expressed interest from the students, to devote a class or two to string theory, but not to ID?This is the kind of question where I find myself floundering. How long do I have to talk, how much do I have to write, in order to make clear why string theory is legitimate scientific investigation and ID is not? It's not that I can't explain it, because I think I can. It's just that way before I finish my explanation I will have lost my intended audience, for reasons ranging from short attention span to lack of serious interest to simple inability to grasp the concepts. This last is the most difficult to deal with, since how does one remedy a lifetime of ignoring science with a few posts on a message board?We need to somehow come up with as pithy and easy to understand (and accurate) answers to questions about creation and ID as the creationist's response to evolution, "You never get a cat from a dog."One could argue that you could just say about ID, "Scientists don't accept it, so we don't teach it." But the response will be something like, "Dembski's a PhD scientist," and now you're stuck explaining why Dembski isn't a scientist, but though his degrees are in math and theology this might be a tough argument to make, so you'd instead have to explain that Dembski doesn't really participate in the scientific endeavor, that what he's is doing is having no impact on the scientific consensus, and so forth, and you'd probably be largely unsuccessful at persuading anyone. I think we just have to admit that the creationist strategy of donning the trappings of science while not actually doing science is proving eminently successful at confusing the issue. The only place where we really win big is in court.--Percy

Just for reference, here's what Pwnagenpanda said: What the other replies were noting was the inherent contradiction in his claim. He claims both that ID is unfalsifiable, and that it has been falsified. These two claims cannot both be true.The accurate claim is that ID is unfalsifiable. No matter what one might learn about the real world, it will always be consistent with ID. Since there is no possible evidence one might imagine that could contradict ID, ID is therefore unfalsifiable.Some examples make this clear. Let's say we found human fossils back in the pre-Cambrian (before 540 million years ago). Evolutionary theory denies this possibility, therefore evolution would be falsified. ID theory would simply say that the designer designed humans a bit earlier than we originally thought.Or what if we found fossils of griffins and minotaurs. Evolutionary theory would have an extremely difficult time explaining such fossils, and at a minimum their existence would have to be considered a severe and high priority problem for evolution. ID theory would simply say that the designer designed griffins and minotaurs.Or say that genetic analysis discovered that humans are most closely genetically related to bananas than to any other life form. This would possibly completely falsify evolution, or at least the modern synthesis portion that unites Darwinian evolution with the science of genetics, while ID theory would say that the designer simply chose to use very similar genes when designing the banana and the human.Because ID cannot be falsified, it cannot be considered science.One of the other problems for ID when attempting to qualify as science is that it doesn't make any verifiable predictions. You can find proponents of ID who claim successful predictions for it, but these are predictions of things already known. For example, it is often claimed that ID predicts what we find in the fossil record. But the qualities of the fossil record they're claiming ID predicted were known before the theory was proposed, and so they're not predictions. ID theory would have to make a prediction about the some quality of the fossil record that was not already known, and then if and when that quality was actually identified in the fossil record, it would have to be considered pretty strong evidence for ID.--PercyEdited by Percy, : falsifiable => unfalsifiable in what should have said, "Id is therefore unfalsifiable."

Oops - thanks!--PercyEdited by Percy, : Only three words, typo, believe it or not!

Hi Pbee,All we want to do here is have civil, constructive and informative discussions. If that's also what you want then things should go fine.--Percy

Hi DB,While your apparent unawareness that not all Christian sects use the same Bible is surprising and worth noting, I can't really see the tie-in to ID. I think it would be more relevant to focus on your other statements. Schraf said this in Message 85: To which you replied in Message 86: I think the position of most here who are arguing on the side of science would be that science class is not a course about "ALL beliefs about their existence," and that it isn't the proper venue for "teaching tolerance and diversity," nor for teaching about Christianity.Did you really mean to argue for including these things in science class?--Percy

Well, yeah, precisely, the courts feel the same way.Should I conclude from this that you believe ID should not be taught in science class? Or are you saying that it should, along with Christianity, tolerance, diversity and all beliefs about existence, but that you understand the courts would frown on this?--Percy