Summations Only

It would require you to teach stuff you know to be false.Can you stand up in front of children and tell them that "irreducible complexity can't evolve", or that "mutations only destroy genetic information". Can you in conscience recite their stuff about intermediate forms or thermodynamics? Or advocate the Argument from Design without laughing?Could you do that --- just for thirty pieces of silver?Moreover, since these people mostly pretend they want you to "teach both theories", you yourself would have to reveal to the children every other lesson that you were lying in the previous one.To quote Steven Jay Gould:"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?Creationists can recite creationist nonsense in good conscience only because they know no better. But science teachers do.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't know how to put this tactfully, but ... have you ever considered the possibility that you might be an idiot?As I say, tact is not my strong suit.* bangs head gently against wall *

Ah ... that was tactful.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, well, I should point out that if just saying stuff like this convinced people, then we could have finished the whole debate a while back, knocked off early, and gone down the pub.This isn't much more of a contribution to debate then a fundie posting to say "The Bible is the literal word of God so we're right and you're wrong". (See post #103 for a fine example of the genre.)That said ... welcome to the forums.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Really? You should explain this to scientists, they'd be fascinated to learn this. Ah, paranoia and projection.

Ah, you "were an evolutionist", were you?Please, in your own words, state the theory of evolution.This should be no problem for a former evolutionist like yourself.

So, let's see. You've made up in your head a lot of stupid bullshit about the content of this site.Then you decided to drool out this nonsense in front of the people best qualified to know that you're talking bullshit, i.e. the people who participate on this site.Let me guess ... you're a creationist, yes?You're not just reciting falsehoods, you're doing it in the one place where you are most likely to be caught out.I shall never really understand you people.

Er ... it is extremely brief. Have you ever looked at a biology textbook?

Well, this sort of thing has a connection with things we can actually observe. There is, for example, evidence for what the early atmosphere was like. When there are similar observations in favor of the creationists' magic poofing hypothesis for the origin of life, we can put that in textbooks too.

No, but they have machines that generate radio signals.

Except that they don't actually back you up, do they? Just because you think you see some sort of resemblance between what they do and what the ID crowd are wittering on about, doesn't mean that they do.And indeed, their methodologies explicitly contradict the dogmas of ID. For example, an archeologist will put the crudest of clay pots in the "designed" pile, and the skeleton of an antelope in the "natural" pile. If archeologists are detecting design, then their methods class organisms and their remains as being undesigned --- the exact opposite to the conclusion that IDists want to draw.And how are archeologists carrying out their classification? Of course, because they do know how clay pots are produced and how antelope skeletons are produced, contrary to your claims. If they didn't, on what basis would they distinguish designed objects? By some abstract measure of complexity? But then they'd keep the skeleton and throw away the clay pot instead of the other way round.So apart from you being wrong about everything, you've got a good point.

Except that they don't actually do so, do they?I mean, you can't quote them doing so. This agreement between you and them is something that you have inferred and that they do not in fact agree with. You use a big radio receiver? Feel free to tell me how you do go about it. I think jar overstates the case.What about SETI? They are looking for artificial radio signals. I'm guessing you're not.

Could you elaborate on that a little? What do you think this principle is?For bonus points, you should explain why if you and the SETI people share this principle, the SETI people are not all IDists.

In which case you would first have to prove that evolution (a known non-intelligent process) could not bring about the phenomena requiring explanation.Well, if you could do that, I suppose you would in fact have settled the debate. But people have been trying to do that for some time, with scant success.