[Honealals]

ID/creation "science" should be taught in science class, as a fine example of how science should not be conducted.

[JetePlentuara]

My point is that it should be used to give the students a better understanding of how the scientific method works.
In real science, you basically design experiments to prove that your hypothesis is wrong (of course, in reality many scientists design experiments trying to prove that their spectacular hypothesis is correct, but anyway...). On the contrary, in creation "science" you do it backwards; you start with the conclusions and then you try to find data that appear to fit in with your conclusions.

[Niiinioa]

Evolution, as it exists in contemporary media, is no more science than the Big Bang or ID. The whole problem is that the grossly unscientific junk contaminating the science (Dawkins' "memes", various atheistic pontifications, etc) cannot be separated out. Just as the anti-ID crowd insists that the religious inspiration of ID can't be separated out.

What the IDists want is the two to be treated equally, to the extent that they are equal as philosphical "world views."

[ladleliDypenue]

Originally posted by David Floyd

1)You can't 100% prove evolution.
2)In fact, you can't even explain everything that evolution implies.
3)This means there are major problems with evolutionary theory.
4)Collect underpants.
5)
6)Evolutionary theory is wrong. Fixed!

[Controller]

[q=David Floyd]the problem is that there is actual scientific evidence pointing towards evolution[/q]

Pfft, who needs scientific evidence in science anyway?!

[KJnbceja]

2+2=5.

I have FAITH it is so.

[Zhgpavye]

BenK. But he is immune to taunts and reason.

[thomaskkk]

If your opponent is even mildly intellectually honest - which is in many cases not true - you can usually pin them into a corner here and get them to admit that there is no affirmitive scientific evidence for creationist theory. Do you realize how dumbass this is, David?

[Searmoreibe]

Why would a creationist feel compelled to offer scientific theory to creation? Put the shoe on the other foot.

[embefuri]

Hebrews 11:1 Says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
That doesn't beg scientific backing.

[Buildityrit]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Why would a creationist feel compelled to offer scientific theory to creation? Put the shoe on the other foot.
If there are creationists who demand that ID be taught in science classes, then yes, it's fair to press them to provide so-called scientific evidence for ID.

[sapedotru]

Why the **** should science teachers be compelled to refer to creationism in a SCIENCE course if intelligent design is NOT scientifically-based??

If intelligent design has to be included in academic cirricula, then let's place it in an English literature course where fictitious works are read and discussed.

[hiedeemom]

Originally posted by David Floyd
MrFun, I think that attitude/response is what turns off people who fervently believe in creationism/ID. They feel that their belief system is being ridiculed when it is refered to as a work of fiction.

My point is, I'm willing to a)stipulate ID is true for the purposes of argument, because I can't disprove a Creator even if I wanted to, and b)argue that ID can be taught in schools, because there are some decent philosophical arguments for it, as long as it is kept to philosophy or religion courses. What I'm asking for is either an argument against what I just said, or evidence that ID should be placed in our science curriculum. Well, you're being more forgiving with creationists than I am.

[Henldyhl]

Creationists don't deserve the respect of a debate; they only deserve to be ridiculed and called stupid.

[sydramySweame]

Also, like clockwork. (slyt)

If you click on more, you can download the code used to generate this result. (Admittedly, being a simulation, it does make several assumptions--but these assumptions are quite similar to how evolution is supposed to work on the grand scale.)

[UvjqTVVC]

I've never understood the obsession to make a religious-scientific alternative to evolution and make it the überawesome only correct theory. Granted, of the 5 (or was it 6?) different kinds of evolution, only one is scientifically proved, but the others have some support from various sources. I don't know, I don't buy evolution as the 100% sure fact many make it, but I have no problem to see God using evolution in his creation to some extent. I believe he created the world, so I don't believe in evolution as something that "just happened", but I have no strong need to replace evolution with ID, which sounds much more fishy. All I ask is that school acknowledge that evolution is a theory, that part often fail to communicate.

[chelviweeme]

All I ask is that school acknowledge that evolution is a theory, that part often fail to communicate. No, they communicate it. They just use the scientific definition, not the layperson definition. It's that kind of conflation that allows supporters of ID to create a "debate" where none exists.

True, some students may not understand the nuance there. Many ID'ers don't, and many people without a scientific bent are unaware that it exists. But isn't that more the fault of the educational system failing to grant people the necessary intellectual tools to understand subtlety, nuance, and finesse, which, in part, leads to the whole misbegotten American public discourse?

[N95FzmMw]

ID shouldn't been seen as an independant theory or something, because it's not a 'scientific theory'.

We should only consider ID to be an important question to evolution scientists. And as such a question it should be token seriously. Everytime scientists should try to answer that question.

"Is it possible that this system has been brought forward through random mutation and natural selection, and if so, how has that been possible?"

ID is indeed a 'scientific negative' and thus not valid as a scientific theory.

It is of course valid as a philosophical or theological theory. Someone can say: "I consider too much systems in life to be too complex to be created by random mutations and natural selection, I do believe there's intelligent design behind it."
But that's not a scientific explanation.

As a 'believer' I think that we should never accept 'God' to be the answer. I believe that God has created a world that doesn't contain 'gaps' that only God can fill.
Except the 'first cause' gap, btw.

Science, on the other hand, should always shy away from the chance that it considers itself to be the god of the gaps. Ie: science will find an answer.
Science may find answers, but it's very well possible that human intelligence is not capable to find answers to everything.

But we should never accept that. We should keep looking for answers. Never accept our limitations, but still not forget that we are limited anyway.

[deermealec]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Mr Fun
Well, you're being more forgiving with creationists than I am. Originally posted by David Floyd


No, I just find that calling people stupid is a poor way to get them to debate you, and also sort of undermines your own position. Besides, sometimes, just sometimes, people give you even more rope when they open their mouths

Exactly why I'm not interested in your bullshit. You're not here for an exchange of ideas, nor are you interested in possibly embracing religion. You're just a boringass atheist who likes to bait creationists.
Go piss up a rope.

[Jeffery]

What's wrong with it?

It's kindergarten philosophy, that's what's wrong with it.

Basing a conclusion on the comparison between two things of a different kind is just stupid.

The Bike doesn't have a mother because the man who made the bike has a mother.

It's not like wood cannot burn because water can't burn either.

A thought doesn't need space because the author of the thought also needs space.

People who compare apples to stones and proudly claim victory after that are insane.