"It makes no positive assertions"
Wrong. Some ID scientists have formulated a testable model. The NAS obviously isn't advertising that fact.
"Perhaps there is not enough evidence currently within evolution to convince everyone that reducible complexity is possible"
Logical fallacy: "It's not true now, but hopefully it will be someday"
"to argue that not only will progress stop"
Logical fallacy.
"What are you talking about, the fossil record is very consistent with evolutionary theory."
Really? Is that why evolutionists came up with punctuated equilibrium to explain it away?
"Archaeologists have no problem with the fossil record."
Archaeologists don't study fossils. Paleontologists do.
"National Academy of Sciences (the authority on science) thinks of ID. If scientists say it is"
Logical fallacy/appeal to authority. Who gave the NAS the last say on reality? When did this come about?
truthfinder9 - Wrong. Some ID scientists have formulated a testable model. The NAS obviously isn't advertising that fact.
Alacarte - I mention the NAS only because I want to be specific without naming every top science organization and journal, so I chose the most prestigious. But I want to be clear that when I say NAS, all other real science organizations agree 100%, and examples can be cited. What the NAS says about science is the most competent, educated opinion on science at man's disposal. Inifintely mroe so than that of christians.
truthfinder9 - Archaeologists don't study fossils. Paleontologists do.
Alacarte - I corrected myself yesterday as soon as I re-read my post, thanks for doing it again.
truthfinder9 - Really? Is that why evolutionists came up with punctuated equilibrium to explain it away?
What is wrong with punctuated equilibrium? There has to be a natural explanation for the distribution of fossils, and this is one. Maybe it's not right, in which case SCIENTISTS will figure it out and come up with the right answer. This is an important point. If punctuated equilibrium is found to be wrong, or a better theory is found, it will be SCIENTISTS who discover it, not ID propogandists.
EVERY field of scientific study is like this, so why is this one an exception? Why aren't christians pointing to the gaps in germ theory? Or relativity? Why don't you all have a problem with gravity?
Let's say that tomorrow we find a cat skeleton beside a pterodactl, evolution as a viable theory is put into serious jeopardy and found to wrong. How does that in ANY way lend credence to god doing it(and ID does imply god, drop the pretense already)? The death of evolution would mean exactly the same thing the death of a theory in ANY field means - there is another natural explanation.
The simple fact that ID takes a conclusion (god made the universe), then selectively collects real scientific data to support that conclusion is unscientific. The mere fact that it mentions the supernatural disqualifies it! The whole point of science is to explain our NATURAL world. If you want to have an invisible friend, more power to you, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with science. So stop trying to sell it as such.
truthfinder9 - Logical fallacy/appeal to authority. Who gave the NAS the last say on reality? When did this come about?
Hey good, you managed to qualify your accusation of fallacy this time. This time you are right, I am appealing to authority, but it is no logical fallacy! The scientific community (not just the NAS) says ID is not science, and that evolution, as it stands, is the best model to explain diversity of life on earth. Science is NOT a democratic system! We never voted on whether gravity was caused by atomic attraction or invisible leprechauns, science is dictated by the facts.
The simple fact that christians are so SELECTIVE about which science you question is pathetic. Planes occassionally crash, where's the christian outrage over the theory of flight? If, as you say, the scientific community does NOT have the last say on reality, then why don't you just run off a cliff, flap your arms and fly next time you want to go somewhere? Well? Why not? Hmmm, those engineers and scientists aren't such fascists bad guys anymore?
Faith has nothing to do with reality, if it did, you wouldn't need 'faith' to believe it. You don't need faith to know that planes are safe, engineers and scientists tell you it is ok. You don't need faith to tell you the food you eat is ok, scientists at the FDA tell you it is. Don't pretend you use your 'faith' for anything useful, because you don't. You use science as much as anybody. Science DOES have the last word on reality, that is its job. And the people know science, are the scientists (ie. NAS).
If Michael Behe wants to productively contribute to science by honestly criticising evolution, that's great, it will only make the theory stronger by more testing. Or it may even expose its weaknesses and lead to a better theory. But as soon as science starts allowing people to hypothesis ghosts or gods as causes, it ceases to be scientific.
You people must drive evolutionary biologists up the wall.