Quote:
Moes Problem is that he doesnt see evolution being able to rationally and scientifically explain itself.
That is hardly my concern. The concern is that as it can't in the context of a class for teens largely incapable of making the leap (you all know its true, look at some of the posters we see here) from theory of evolution to "Hmm, there may be other things out there", you must present competing views.
As to your dissertation, there is a great deal in it that I can not, and do not intend to, dispute. I know full well that there are a whole lot of people out there who know more factual information on this stuff than I ever will. I don't doubt that a fossil record, or a tool record, or a progression of societal behaviors evidenced by archeological finds, indicates a progression of man from one iteration to another.
What is in question is the assertion that a proven fact is so because, and I quote:
Quote:
How do we know Habilis went into Erectus?[...]Because there is no other explanation for the appearance of one and the disappearance of the other in a scientific view point.
Surely you must see that that is just **** poor logic. I do not dispute that all of the circumstantial evidence for the assumption exists. I do not doubt that logically it is the most likely assumption to make. I, however, am not arrogant enough to continue my assumptions and emphaticly demand that it is the only assumption to be made.
Your conclusion is a bit flawed, not so much on the evolutionary side, but in the characterization of ID. Evolutionary theory is a framework, with lots to be filled in, but ID doesn't necessarily seek to fill that in. It is the wrapper on that framework. It encompasses it, forms a lynchpin. That is an unacceptable idea for a scientific community, and secular society in general, searching as hard as it can to prove once and for all that God doesn't exist (Not that "God", per se, has anything to do with ID).