Would you really teach "creation science"?

[shernren]

I have seen many YEC posters here arguing that some form of creation science should be taught in the classroom. I believe (to be civil) that the creation science movement simply isn't mature enough to handle this. The question now is: what do creation scientists really have to teach anyway?

This is an important point. As far as I can see, 99% of scientific creationist arguments are arguments from negation. In simpler words the arguments begin:

Conventional theory cannot explain this

and end:

Therefore conventional theory is wrong.

Firstly, conventional theory may lack the answer simply because it is immature. If that is the case, then as theory matures the creationist argument will quietly self-destruct. Even if conventional theory cannot explain it because it is genuinely wrong in that area, no proper criticism can be brought until a better counter-theory can be given. For example, a medieval chemist might have known all the flaws in the phlogiston theory, but he would not have been able to discredit it until oxygen was isolated and demonstrated to be the element central to combustion.

If creationists are so gosh darned right they should have their own scientific theories that can be tested.

How do you teach science? You start with an observation, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and conclude that the hypothesis is right if validified; or refine or modify the hypothesis if disproved. For example, let's say I want to demonstrate the work-energy theorem in the form of an an object moving down a slide. Ignoring frictional forces I can come up with an equation relating the initial height and gravitational acceleration of the object to its final speed. I then slide some objects down a slide, recording their initial height and measuring their terminal speed. I tabulate the results and then - what do you know - they match the equation, allowing for experimental error.

The thing is, do we have analogous processes in creation science? The question is: how would you teach creation science? What relationships between observables does creation science predict, and how can these relationships be empirically tested, and how can these testing procedures be carried out (at least in mini) in a school lab?

 

[Defcon]

I have seen many YEC posters here arguing that some form of creation science should be taught in the classroom. I believe (to be civil) that the creation science movement simply isn't mature enough to handle this. The question now is: what do creation scientists really have to teach anyway?

This is an important point. As far as I can see, 99% of scientific creationist arguments are arguments from negation. In simpler words the arguments begin:

Conventional theory cannot explain this

and end:

Therefore conventional theory is wrong.

Firstly, conventional theory may lack the answer simply because it is immature. If that is the case, then as theory matures the creationist argument will quietly self-destruct. Even if conventional theory cannot explain it because it is genuinely wrong in that area, no proper criticism can be brought until a better counter-theory can be given. For example, a medieval chemist might have known all the flaws in the phlogiston theory, but he would not have been able to discredit it until oxygen was isolated and demonstrated to be the element central to combustion.

If creationists are so gosh darned right they should have their own scientific theories that can be tested.

How do you teach science? You start with an observation, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and conclude that the hypothesis is right if validified; or refine or modify the hypothesis if disproved. For example, let's say I want to demonstrate the work-energy theorem in the form of an an object moving down a slide. Ignoring frictional forces I can come up with an equation relating the initial height and gravitational acceleration of the object to its final speed. I then slide some objects down a slide, recording their initial height and measuring their terminal speed. I tabulate the results and then - what do you know - they match the equation, allowing for experimental error.

The thing is, do we have analogous processes in creation science? The question is: how would you teach creation science? What relationships between observables does creation science predict, and how can these relationships be empirically tested, and how can these testing procedures be carried out (at least in mini) in a school lab?

First of all, it's only negation because evolution/long ages is considered true and there are phenomena that can't be explained by this. So shall we only teach what some of the evidence fits? Shouldn't we encourage students to recognized the errors in the theory so that they can reason for themselves?

Second, your 99% is a little extreme. The irreducible complexity of organisms as well as ecosystems is not a negation. This can be taught in the manner of "A exists but only because B exists and we know that C only exists because of A", etc. This is not negation.

Third, using your standard that things must be provable; why do we continue to believe in evolution and primordial soup when we can't form an organism from primordial soup? That, by your standard, would mean that it shouldn't be in the classroom since we can't produce what is claimed. This falls into the same "supernatural" realm as Creation does.

 

[Saucy]

I wouldn't call that being immature. Not at all. Science does it all the time with other scientists claims. Isn't part of the scientific process to question and deny opposing views? I really don't think you can have a creation science class and a evolutionary science class without having to deny the other.

 

[shernren]

First of all, it's only negation because evolution/long ages is considered true and there are phenomena that can't be explained by this. So shall we only teach what some of the evidence fits? Shouldn't we encourage students to recognized the errors in the theory so that they can reason for themselves?

I would acknowledge that there are gaps. In particular I'm simply overwhelmed by what both sides are saying about helium in zircons and I need someone I can trust a lot - not ICR, probably not TalkOrigins either - with solid geology knowledge to help me sort the mess out. There is probably something the old-earthers can't explain but it's probably not to the extent of turning a few million years into a few thousand years.

Yes, by all means tell them that there are problems, that there are things we just can't explain yet. Textbooks do this all the time. They go like "At present we are unable to identify this" etc. etc. If I have time I'll look through my biology textbook's section on the beginnings of life and show you some of these "We're not sure" statements. But what is dishonest (to be polite) is to pretend that there is a better scientific theory out there that can explain it. Creation science isn't scientific yet. Until it is it shouldn't be taught as science.

Second, your 99% is a little extreme. The irreducible complexity of organisms as well as ecosystems is not a negation. This can be taught in the manner of "A exists but only because B exists and we know that C only exists because of A", etc. This is not negation.

Yes, irreducible complexity arguments are also arguments from negation. From Wikipedia's entry on irreducible complexity:

Behe argued that there are biochemical systems which are "irreducibly complex" because he saw no way in which these systems could be broken down into smaller functioning systems.

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity, emphasis added)

I didn't get your "ABC" argument, but here's what I can summarize of complexity arguments:

Component A of system X has no individual function.
Component B of system X has no individual function.
There is no other way to evolve system X besides adding component A to component B.
But if one component were alone without the other, it would have no function and therefore would devolve before the other component was added.
Therefore there is no simple evolutionary formula for system X.

As you can see, all the above are basically statements of negation. And the problem with statements of negation is that they cannot be proved until all possible counterexamples are exhausted. A good example is Behe's "irreducible" mousetrap. Behe thought it was irreducible because he had exhausted all his known counterexamples. But because there were other counterexamples he hadn't exhausted, in the end some were found that did, after all, disprove his assertion.

"Irreducible" means not reducible and so the word itself is a negation word.

Third, using your standard that things must be provable; why do we continue to believe in evolution and primordial soup when we can't form an organism from primordial soup? That, by your standard, would mean that it shouldn't be in the classroom since we can't produce what is claimed. This falls into the same "supernatural" realm as Creation does.

Well, how is primordial soup supernatural? Assuming we did know the formula of primordial soup and the interactions within it we could easily replicate the creation of life in the lab. Our problem now is a lack of information, not a lack of causal relationships. Whereas creation science has the problem of lack of causal relationships. We can say that God formed man from clay. Fine: prepare me a lump of clay and show me how God did it. We know what clay is like, we know what man is like, but there is no scientific causal link between the two and therefore this phenomenon cannot be studied scientifically. Whereas we have a small idea of the abiogenesis link, we know what life is like, and again we have a small idea of the primordial soup, which means we can conduct scientific experiments to refine our knowledge of the abiogenesis link and the composition of the primordial soup.

And I don't believe in abiogenesis. So there!

I wouldn't call that being immature. Not at all. Science does it all the time with other scientists claims. Isn't part of the scientific process to question and deny opposing views? I really don't think you can have a creation science class and a evolutionary science class without having to deny the other.

Go on, question and deny gravity. To do so in a science class would be a waste of time. Ditto evolution.

The fact is that science like any other field of study has its edges and boundaries. Towards the edge of knowledge, where we still don't know enough, there are controversies and disagreements. But none of these controversies and disagreements affect the central ideas of science far from the edge, and these central solid ideas are what we teach students. Students learn science from the inside out - starting with central ideas, slowly edging outward as they learn more and more advanced stuff, and finally (if they take up science as a vocation) reaching the edge where everybody's exploring and nobody is really sure anymore what they're facing.

At the edge of physics, nobody really knows what causes gravity - gravitons? branes? space warping? - but at the center nobody denies that it manifests as an inverse-square field, and that is what we teach students. The error of creation science is that it tries to expose students to the frontiers of research, where there are active debates, and then tries to extrapolate from that that the very central ideas of biology and geology where students begin to learn science are uncertain.

On an interesting aside, would you rather your students not learn evolution at all? That is what the biology syllabus is like in my country, actually. We don't learn anything about evolution, abiogenesis, paleontology, etc. We only learn rudimentary genetics (Mendel's 1st and 2nd laws and sex-linked genes) and no developmental biology. Much of it is devoted to empirical systemic analysis (what does this do? what does that do?) resulting in very shallow and memorised biology knowledge. Would you prefer that?

 

[Defcon]

I would acknowledge that there are gaps. In particular I'm simply overwhelmed by what both sides are saying about helium in zircons and I need someone I can trust a lot - not ICR, probably not TalkOrigins either - with solid geology knowledge to help me sort the mess out. There is probably something the old-earthers can't explain but it's probably not to the extent of turning a few million years into a few thousand years.

Yes, by all means tell them that there are problems, that there are things we just can't explain yet. Textbooks do this all the time. They go like "At present we are unable to identify this" etc. etc. If I have time I'll look through my biology textbook's section on the beginnings of life and show you some of these "We're not sure" statements. But what is dishonest (to be polite) is to pretend that there is a better scientific theory out there that can explain it. Creation science isn't scientific yet. Until it is it shouldn't be taught as science.

Double standard. "We're not sure..... but we know eventually it will fit in with the rest of our theory." Come on. That's scientific?

Yes, irreducible complexity arguments are also arguments from negation. From Wikipedia's entry on irreducible complexity:

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity, emphasis added)

I didn't get your "ABC" argument, but here's what I can summarize of complexity arguments:

Component A of system X has no individual function.
Component B of system X has no individual function.
There is no other way to evolve system X besides adding component A to component B.
But if one component were alone without the other, it would have no function and therefore would devolve before the other component was added.
Therefore there is no simple evolutionary formula for system X.

As you can see, all the above are basically statements of negation. And the problem with statements of negation is that they cannot be proved until all possible counterexamples are exhausted. A good example is Behe's "irreducible" mousetrap. Behe thought it was irreducible because he had exhausted all his known counterexamples. But because there were other counterexamples he hadn't exhausted, in the end some were found that did, after all, disprove his assertion.

Again, double standard. Have we exhausted every avenue to explore the supernatural? Have we disproven there are invisible pink bunnies hopping around? Surely we haven't exhausted all of resources to determine that, have we? So perhaps we should declare there are invisible pink bunnies until we exhaust every avenue of knowledge to disprove it.....

"Irreducible" means not reducible and so the word itself is a negation word.

Negation in your previous post dealt with Intelligent Design only existing as negation to Evolution. Irreducible vs. reducible in its plain sense and as a concept has nothing to do with negation. You are perceiving it as a negation because irreducible complexity goes against evolution. The concept itself is not a negation unless the presupposition is that everything is reducible by default.

Well, how is primordial soup supernatural? Assuming we did know the formula of primordial soup and the interactions within it we could easily replicate the creation of life in the lab. Our problem now is a lack of information, not a lack of causal relationships. Whereas creation science has the problem of lack of causal relationships. We can say that God formed man from clay. Fine: prepare me a lump of clay and show me how God did it. We know what clay is like, we know what man is like, but there is no scientific causal link between the two and therefore this phenomenon cannot be studied scientifically. Whereas we have a small idea of the abiogenesis link, we know what life is like, and again we have a small idea of the primordial soup, which means we can conduct scientific experiments to refine our knowledge of the abiogenesis link and the composition of the primordial soup.

Another double standard. You are assuming that eventually we will know exactly what was in the primordial soup and how things evolved, etc. While its ok to assume this scientifically, you can't rule out Intelligent Design as "assumed" as well. Both are assumptions and one can not take precedent over the other unless the presupposition is God does not exist.

On an interesting aside, would you rather your students not learn evolution at all? That is what the biology syllabus is like in my country, actually. We don't learn anything about evolution, abiogenesis, paleontology, etc. We only learn rudimentary genetics (Mendel's 1st and 2nd laws and sex-linked genes) and no developmental biology. Much of it is devoted to empirical systemic analysis (what does this do? what does that do?) resulting in very shallow and memorised biology knowledge. Would you prefer that?

No. I would prefer both be presented. Intelligent Design and Evolution. Ultimately, origins science has many presuppositions attached to it for the sheer fact that no one was there to actually record and test the occurence. Both Intelligent Design scientists and Evolutionists come to the same conclusions when it comes to operations science. Therefore, teach both - with all presuppostions.

 

[billwald]

IDers are dishonest in that they don't support SETI or want it taught that humans were seeded on this earth by space aliens from another part of the galaxy or that our ancestors came from Mars.

 

[Defcon]

IDers are dishonest in that they don't support SETI or want it taught that humans were seeded on this earth by space aliens from another part of the galaxy or that our ancestors came from Mars.

I think SETI is laughable but I'm not one for censorship. Notice, I didn't say that a certain God should be taught along with Intelligent Design, just that the theory of Intelligent Design should be taught with the theory of evolution.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Double standard. "We're not sure..... but we know eventually it will fit in with the rest of our theory." Come on. That's scientific?

It's scientific because:
-There's no competing scientific theory that can explain it better.
-History tells us that it will probably be explained. There have been multiple times in the past where we didn't know the mechanism at first but eventually figured it out.

Again, double standard. Have we exhausted every avenue to explore the supernatural? Have we disproven there are invisible pink bunnies hopping around? Surely we haven't exhausted all of resources to determine that, have we? So perhaps we should declare there are invisible pink bunnies until we exhaust every avenue of knowledge to disprove it.....

Negation in your previous post dealt with Intelligent Design only existing as negation to Evolution. Irreducible vs. reducible in its plain sense and as a concept has nothing to do with negation. You are perceiving it as a negation because irreducible complexity goes against evolution. The concept itself is not a negation unless the presupposition is that everything is reducible by default.

The difference between evolution and ID is evolution can make predictions. It's ability to make testable predictions makes it better than ad hoc explainations introducing new, unsupported concepts like pink bunnies.

Another double standard. You are assuming that eventually we will know exactly what was in the primordial soup and how things evolved, etc. While its ok to assume this scientifically, you can't rule out Intelligent Design as "assumed" as well. Both are assumptions and one can not take precedent over the other unless the presupposition is God does not exist.

One does not presuppose that God doesn't exist. Rather, one presuppses that most of the time God's Creation works in a way that does not require explicit divine intervention.

No. I would prefer both be presented. Intelligent Design and Evolution. Ultimately, origins science has many presuppositions attached to it for the sheer fact that no one was there to actually record and test the occurence. Both Intelligent Design scientists and Evolutionists come to the same conclusions when it comes to operations science. Therefore, teach both - with all presuppostions.

We can't go back and observe the initial event, but we can test whether a theory's predictions are consistent with available evidendce. If a hypothesized method of development requires certain conditions, we can see if there is evidence that Earth had those conditions at that time. If it requires that a certain reaction will happen under certain conditions, we can set up those conditions and see if it will happen.

 

[Defcon]

It's scientific because:
-There's no competing scientific theory that can explain it better.
-History tells us that it will probably be explained. There have been multiple times in the past where we didn't know the mechanism at first but eventually figured it out.

This is your opinion. There are scientists who hold that evolution is fiction.

The difference between evolution and ID is evolution can make predictions. It's ability to make testable predictions makes it better than ad hoc explainations introducing new, unsupported concepts like pink bunnies.

Your taking what I said out of context. My argument was against the idea that nothing can be irreducible because we haven't explored all options. Yet we then turn around and say that there can't be a Creator involved and dispell that without thinking twice - how can that happen if we haven't exhausted all possibilites?

One does not presuppose that God doesn't exist. Rather, one presuppses that most of the time God's Creation works in a way that does not require explicit divine intervention.

You may do this, but there are scientists who presuppose God doesn't exist, and there are scientists that presuppose God does exist and does require divine intervention.

We can't go back and observe the initial event, but we can test whether a theory's predictions are consistent with available evidendce. If a hypothesized method of development requires certain conditions, we can see if there is evidence that Earth had those conditions at that time. If it requires that a certain reaction will happen under certain conditions, we can set up those conditions and see if it will happen.

Yeah, I get that, but presuppositions still exist. Period. Teach them both, evolution and ID.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

This is your opinion. There are scientists who hold that evolution is fiction.

Those scientists haven't produced another theory to replace evolution which has anything close to its predictive power.

Your taking what I said out of context. My argument was against the idea that nothing can be irreducible because we haven't explored all options. Yet we then turn around and say that there can't be a Creator involved and dispell that without thinking twice - how can that happen if we haven't exhausted all possibilites?

Science can say nothing about whether there was a Creator involved. The problem with ID is that it tries to say something about this issue one way or the other.

You may do this, but there are scientists who presuppose God doesn't exist, and there are scientists that presuppose God does exist and does require divine intervention.

Regardless of whether an individual scientist presupposes that God exists or not, science can only speak about what happens absent divine intervention. You can't put God in a box and run experiments on Him.

Yeah, I get that, but presuppositions still exist. Period. Teach them both, evolution and ID.

The problem with ID is that it by its very nature is making statements beyond what science can make. The closest science can get to ID is to say "There is no known natural process that can explain how this happened." It can't prove God was involved because God's involvement is not limited by any rules.

 

[Defcon]

Those scientists haven't produced another theory to replace evolution which has anything close to its predictive power.



Science can say nothing about whether there was a Creator involved. The problem with ID is that it tries to say something about this issue one way or the other.



Regardless of whether an individual scientist presupposes that God exists or not, science can only speak about what happens absent divine intervention. You can't put God in a box and run experiments on Him.



The problem with ID is that it by its very nature is making statements beyond what science can make. The closest science can get to ID is to say "There is no known natural process that can explain how this happened." It can't prove God was involved because God's involvement is not limited by any rules.

Let me make a general statement here. If science were offering so-called theories with recognition of flaws concerning evolution/long ages, there wouldn't be that much of a problem. The problem occurs that evolution is the only theory presented, is the only idea presented as intelligent in mainstream circles, and is often laid down as fact. Is that what we think science should be? Shouldn't science look at all the facts and if something doesn't make sense propose other theories? Instead, phenomena that goes against evolution/long-ages is thrown into "we'll figure it out eventually" and anything that looks to evolution/long-ages is seen as irrefutable. Your responses lead us to believe origins science operates free of any presuppositions; and that is just simply false.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Let me make a general statement here. If science were offering so-called theories with recognition of flaws concerning evolution/long ages, there wouldn't be that much of a problem. The problem occurs that evolution is the only theory presented, is the only idea presented as intelligent in mainstream circles, and is often laid down as fact. Is that what we think science should be? Shouldn't science look at all the facts and if something doesn't make sense propose other theories? Instead, phenomena that goes against evolution/long-ages is thrown into "we'll figure it out eventually" and anything that looks to evolution/long-ages is seen as irrefutable. Your responses lead us to believe origins science operates free of any presuppositions; and that is just simply false.

I haven't seen anything against evolution that can't be classified either as a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what the theory says or what the evidence says or as an appeal to ignorance. Our ignorance should be acknowledged, but it should not be overplayed. One shouldn't make a big deal about things we can't figure out yet if we haven't had time to figure them out yet.

 

[Defcon]

I haven't seen anything against evolution that can't be classified either as a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what the theory says or what the evidence says or as an appeal to ignorance. Our ignorance should be acknowledged, but it should not be overplayed. One shouldn't make a big deal about things we can't figure out yet if we haven't had time to figure them out yet.

Oh? Well let's see for starters we have no, count them no transitional fossils. We also have our moon on an orbit that moves away from the earth too rapidly to have kept the it's orbit through millions and millions of years. That's 2 that just doesn't fit evolution/long ages. The facts are there- if you want to be naive and believe that evolution is air tight, you are making a larger leap than most scientists do today.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Oh? Well let's see for starters we have no, count them no transitional fossils.

Incorrect. Of course, you're not going to bother defining "transitional," so there's no point in pushing the issue.

We also have our moon on an orbit that moves away from the earth too rapidly to have kept the it's orbit through millions and millions of years.

Also incorrect... based on flawed calculations, and completely irrelevent to biological evolution anyway.

That's 2 that just doesn't fit evolution/long ages. The facts are there- if you want to be naive and believe that evolution is air tight, you are making a larger leap than most scientists do today.

The PRATTs are there... oldies but goodies.

 

[shernren]

NO! I have low PRATT-tolerance Defcon! *stomach starts churning ... *

Double standard. "We're not sure..... but we know eventually it will fit in with the rest of our theory." Come on. That's scientific?

One thing you have yet to appreciate is that Intelligent Design is not scientific. That's the difference between evolution and others. I know we come across as a bunch of evolution nuts but that's simply because there is no other scientific theory.

Let's take gravity for an example. Two of the most commonly quoted theories are superstring theory and braneworld theory. Let's say a scientist performs a particular experiment. He finds that the result doesn't really support superstring theory. "Well," he reasons, "if it doesn't support superstring theory, then maybe it's more in support of braneworld theory." So in the journal or report he writes "this shows interesting evidence for braneworld theory."

Now, let's take the "anomalies" in evolution. Me finds something weird, like something which looks rather irreducibly complex. "Maybe," I think, "if it doesn't support evolution, maybe it supports - oh wait! There's nothing else for it to support!" Now it's a documented fact, and it is true, but the way to deal with it is to say that "for lack of a better theory we believe that evolution will eventually be able to explain this."

Get the difference?

Again, double standard. Have we exhausted every avenue to explore the supernatural? Have we disproven there are invisible pink bunnies hopping around? Surely we haven't exhausted all of resources to determine that, have we? So perhaps we should declare there are invisible pink bunnies until we exhaust every avenue of knowledge to disprove it.....

Very few TEs will deny that the supernatural exists. But how do you scientifically study the supernatural? Can you run an experiment on God? (George Muller never said anything about evolution. ) What do you manipulate? What quantity reacts? How do you measure "designed-ness"? What do you keep constant?

Show me a scientifically verifiable hypothesis about Go - whoops, Intelligent Designer. Isn't it hypocritical for Christians to want to push creation science into schools, yet make it palatable by not giving glory to God? (And to think we TEs are the ones accused of stealing God's glory!)

Negation in your previous post dealt with Intelligent Design only existing as negation to Evolution. Irreducible vs. reducible in its plain sense and as a concept has nothing to do with negation. You are perceiving it as a negation because irreducible complexity goes against evolution. The concept itself is not a negation unless the presupposition is that everything is reducible by default.

Fine. Define "irreducible complexity" for me in a way that does not reference the concept of reducibility.

Another double standard. You are assuming that eventually we will know exactly what was in the primordial soup and how things evolved, etc. While its ok to assume this scientifically, you can't rule out Intelligent Design as "assumed" as well. Both are assumptions and one can not take precedent over the other unless the presupposition is God does not exist.

No, we are assuming that if primordial soup exists, it can be analyzed and quantified scientifically. Whereas even though God exists, He cannot be analyzed and quantified. How do you run an experiment on God?

No. I would prefer both be presented. Intelligent Design and Evolution. Ultimately, origins science has many presuppositions attached to it for the sheer fact that no one was there to actually record and test the occurence. Both Intelligent Design scientists and Evolutionists come to the same conclusions when it comes to operations science. Therefore, teach both - with all presuppostions.

Well, go ahead. But the class on ID is bound to be short. I can write out the lesson plan for you right now.

Teacher: "Life is complex: therefore life is designed."
Students: "Life is complex: therefore life is designed."
Teacher: "DNA is complex: therefore DNA is designed."
Students: "DNA is complex: therefore DNA is designed."
Teacher: "RNA is complex: therefore RNA is designed."
Students: "RNA is complex: therefore RNA is designed."

*intone ad infinitum ad nauseam*

Whereas the evolution classes can go on and on about primordial soup and amino acid precursors and primitive genetic material, self-assembling macromolecules, lipid micelles, etc. etc.

 

[Defcon]

Incorrect. Of course, you're not going to bother defining "transitional," so there's no point in pushing the issue.



Also incorrect... based on flawed calculations, and completely irrelevent to biological evolution anyway.

That's 2 that just doesn't fit evolution/long ages. The facts are there- if you want to be naive and believe that evolution is air tight, you are making a larger leap than most scientists do today.

The PRATTs are there... oldies but goodies.[/QUOTE]Not sure what "Pratts" are - but this thread is getting further and further off topic - and I need to take some of the blame. We are supposed to be discussing whether ID can be taught as anything but negation. To respond to your posts would give the impression of negating (and by the way, I do disagree ). Beyond that - I appear to be the only one pushing for ID to be taught so unless someone else wants to chime in on this topic on the pro-ID side, I see no value in pushing this further.

 

[The Lady Kate]

We are supposed to be discussing whether ID can be taught as anything but negation.

Clearly it cannot.

To respond to your posts would give the impression of negating (and by the way, I do disagree ).

Without saying why? If you don't negate something, the ID argument is dead in the water.

Beyond that - I appear to be the only one pushing for ID to be taught so unless someone else wants to chime in on this topic on the pro-ID side, I see no value in pushing this further.

A maneuver commonly referred to as "surrender."

 

[Defcon]

A maneuver commonly referred to as "surrender."

Gee, I almost forgot why I hate to even participate in these discussions (and I use the term loosely), thanks for reminding me.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Oh? Well let's see for starters we have no, count them no transitional fossils. We also have our moon on an orbit that moves away from the earth too rapidly to have kept the it's orbit through millions and millions of years. That's 2 that just doesn't fit evolution/long ages. The facts are there- if you want to be naive and believe that evolution is air tight, you are making a larger leap than most scientists do today.

That would go into category 1.

 

[shernren]

Sorry Defcon that I threw it at you all of a sudden, but PRATT is our pet nickname for "Points Refuted A Thousand Times". Some people have suggested PRAMT but I don't think we'll go thaaaaaat far.

Btw Defcon I don't think it's gone too far off topic. My question isn't "Should we teach ID in schools?" but "How should we teach ID in schools?" You see, posing the first makes it an extremely academic and ethical question. We start debating about freedom of religion, separation of church and state, the nature of science, etc.etc.etc. and then we end up in a big mess. I was wondering about teaching ID when I encountered one of those "We should have a balanced origin coverage" ideas here at CF. Then I realized that there wouldn't really be very much we could teach under the title of ID except "If we can't explain it now it must have been designed! Err...yeah!" and that very succinctly shows why we should not teach ID : not so much that it is wrong to, but that ID is simply too immature as a "science" to be taught as a science.