Since there is really nothing to teach when it comes down to ID, this is really the crux of the issue. ID compensates for a lack of evidence by focussing on poking holes in the other guys evidence.
How anyone could imagine this to be anything other than counter productive shit disturbing is anyones guess.
Especially since none of their ‘counter-evidence’ stands up to scrutiny, and without fail is composed of out of context quote mining and extremely specious and elastic exegesis…
I thought that was what’s called “falsification” of a theory.
Whether the arguments amount to anything would seem to be the debate itself.
Show the kids how to debate a scientific theory.
Still, poking holes in a theory does not itself constitute a theory, and that is the whole problem with teaching ID as it’s own theory…it simply doesnt qualify.
Besides, as I already pointed out none of the ‘counter-evidence’ stands up to any sort of scrutiny, so teaching the ID arguments in schools would amount to willful dishonesty.
I’m with Dr. S on this issue, calling ID science is akin to calling religion - science. You can no more prove that god exists than you can that we had an intelligent designer.
And the so called “holes” are not holes at all, they are ignoring large reams of labratory evidence and archaelogical evidence. They are ignoring living transitionary forms, all in the name of god.
I don’t think religious organizations should be taxed, lest they start pushing religion all over the place.
S, where can I hear more about these intermediate forms?
Again, ID is philosophy, which some philosophers would call “science” (“scientia”), and philosophy is a prior discipline to doing empirical science. Also, as I have opined before on these boards, religion is a response to the experience of the Holy, so it should not be confused with physical sciences.
Proving an intelligent designer (I would say) is the same thing as proving God’s existence, so what you said is correct. I simply see the (famous but not overdone) found-watch analogy as sufficent to do this.
I think I know how this will be recieved, but I’ll propose it anyway:
Let’s mix Darwin with Aquinas’ 5th way of proving God’s existence – that is, by the observation that animals which show little intelligence seem to achieve sometimes marvelous things despite it. Therefore, runs the argument, they must be guided as an arrow from a bow; and this director, we call God.
So then, if animals are naturally directed by God to accomplish what they do, He must be the force behind evolution’s intstincts, and thereby can be credited with the direction of evolution. But this differs from Darwin’s explanation in that the instincts can have an intended direction instead of being blind, habitual action.
Is this way of thinking interesting at all to you?
mrn
