Why should ID be taught in science classes...

Going back to the O.P. Young earth creationists should arguably get a foot in the educational door before I.D. It's a complete joke, but they have at least got something together to teach. It's I.D. with the "who did what and when?" questions filled in, and they've certainly been pushing it for far longer than the I.D. movement.But fringe-science and psuedo-science aside, there are many good hypotheses in many fields that are not taught on science curriculums because there's insufficient evidence to support them. In evolution, the idea that our ancestors may have learned to walk upright in the water while living and hunting/fishing around marshland, rivers or lakes, for example. There's no real evidence for it, other than that we are the most aquatic of the apes, but it's a good idea, and if science teachers feel that they have spare time to fill in (which I doubt!) then it is far better spent on reasonable speculation than on fringe ideas involving invisible Gods, invisible intelligent designers, or, for that matter, invisible elves and fairies!

Hasn't the present Pope, arch-conservative (and ex-nazi youth) that he is, been making sympathetic noises towards I.D. recently?And why is it that I.D. always seems to appeal to right-wingers? We know it's a religious movement, but if it's political as well, then there's a double reason to be wary of teaching it in science classes.Although evolutionary theory could be said to have religious implications in the minds of literalist interpreters of the Abrahamic religions, I don't see how it could possibly be political. Ultimately, it's just biology, and biology tells us nothing about how we should organize our socio-economic systems, and cannot be the property of either left or right.

I agree that there are problems, and thanks for the links. I was merely using that theory (or hypothesis) as an example of one of many things which would take priority over I.D. in science teaching ( in relation to cavediver's O.P.) because, as you say: I expect you'd agree with that. In fact, I suspect that if a group of biologists were to sit down and made up a list of new things that could be included in current high school text books, I.D. wouldn't come in the top one hundred. It seems to me to be pure speculation with no substance at all.Which is why I'd like to see an I.D. advocate reply to Nator's request in post 21 above.

Here's some people on a pro-I.D. board listing and describing just some of the problems with Dembski's "specified complexity".http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000339.htmlEnjoy yourself with those, then consider that in application to biology, it does nothing to challenge mutation and natural selection without using Behe's concept of irreducible complexity. The problem here is that, as this wiki article puts it:

quote:

---

The examples offered to support the irreducible complexity argument have generally been found to fail to meet the definition and intermediate precursor states have been identified for several structures purported to exhibit irreducible complexity. For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System. This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways. Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part. Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance. Irreducible complexity is generally dismissed by the scientific community; it is often referred to as pseudoscience.

​

Despite being discredited in the Dover trial where the court found in its ruling that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large", irreducible complexity has nevertheless remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design and other creationists.

---

Irreducible complexity - WikipediaIn other words, it's all a big storm in a tea cup, and a very good example of superstition based wishful thinking.But do present your own evidence for I.D. on the thread that dwise1 has set up for the purpose, and do please include SC and IC in it.

The organism would always function, and the parts that become the flagellum would always have some function. Parts of the machine can function on their own, and in conjunction with other missing characteristics. What Behe/Dembski will not tell you is that mutations subtract characteristics just as much as they add them.Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap, so here's an evolving IC mousetrap for you.http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html No. That's like some kind of Lamarckism. It's got nothing to do with what you feel like. Yes. Haven't you heard of gliders? Flying squirrels, flying fish, etc. A squirrel jumps spreadeagled for wind resistance. Even a small bit of skin between it legs and body will give it more resistance, and could be selected for if jumping long distances is more advantageous than being a good runner on the ground (it depends on the specific environment which is better). Evolutionary theory is the only origins theory that fits the evidence. If it weren't for superstition, there would be no need to "push" it. I have yet to see criticism of the kind you're doing of evolutionary theory that wasn't based on superstition and desire. Can't you be honest with yourself about this? Edited by bluegenes, : missing quoteEdited by bluegenes, : quote still missing