The case for Intelligent DesignFollow

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:

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).

I've professed belief in a Divine many, many times on this forum. That belief doesn't convince me that ID has enough ground to be taught in the classroom as a scientific theory. Nice try though.

How so? You may bring up all of the inferences and supposition and conclusions based on incomplete data sets that you like, it hardly constitutes proof.

Well, now, yeah, but not when I am responding to Bhodi and Jophiel.

Prove it.

And yes, ID does explain all of those things just as well as evolution. Well, except for the appendix thing. Damned appedices. Who cares what book you read it out of?!?

Creationism is a belief. ID is a theory. Get 'em straight.

Neph.

There is a difference between legislating teaching "Evolution is an inpcomplete discipline but is evolving and changing as new evidence comes to light" and "We cant explain certain things not because of lack of evidence but because it was devine intervention"

Some people on the ID side try to paint the picture of supporters of evolution that view it as a unchanging infallabile uniform all encompassing theory. This only shows their ignorance of the theory. Any introductory course worth taking will cover the problems and current arguments in the theory.

If the Kanasas school board was trying to teach that it would be no problem, in fact it would have the support of the community. However they latch on and try to attribute it all to God. I dont care which way you cut it that is bad science and should be kept out of the class room.

Agreed. But you can't refute ID has a whole because some believers are idiots.

Otherwise shadow has spelled the doom of Liberals everywhere.

That's why I am saying that the Scientific Method trumps all. Those who don't embrace it, from both sides, are disqualified from being sufficient representation of their camps.

Maybe *it* wanted to watch us learn, grow, and evolve.

Because creationism has been debunked thoroughly but they have a hard time stomaching a secular view of the origins of man.

It has...or haven't you seen 'Girls gone wildTM'?

Ambrya, I love you. If it wasn't for my fear of all vaginas including my own, I'd try to get you in the sack and make babies.

I disagree that the analogy isn't relevant. The point he made to me is that English belonged to the US. Now, I have had perfectly lovely conversations about racism in Spanish class, and economy in history class, and come to think of it, about homophobia in English class. None of these were 'taught', but adressed when they came up by means of a class discussion and interchange of ideas. Again, the letter states that ID wasn't taught to the class. They were simply made aware of its existence.

Edited, Mon Oct 17 15:57:06 2005 by Atomicflea

I don't know what you make your babies out of, but I think you might have a small problem.

Although, after seeing a pic of Ambrya, she might have you covered.

Theology = Theology class.

Science = Science class.

Is it really that hard or are there just that many retards in the world who should blow their ******* brains out?

Grady

DSD, wtf happened to premium?

Her husband cut her off