Replies

Some argue that Evolution, itself, is more philosophy than science.

They say that the Evos believe that life evolved through nondirect, materialistic processes.

But the Non-Evos counter: we need to prove that life came from non-life or abiogenesis. And we need then a change from simple life forms to more complex forms over time.

The Evos say: We could talk about competing models and so forth... so as to have a starting point in this game of life.

The Non-Evos counter:

If we don't know how this game started by naturalistic, evolutionary processes then how do we know that it happened by naturalistic and evolutionary processes?

***********************

I understand that micro-evolution exists but macro evolution is somewhat of a stretch for me at this point. Macro-evo, I don't believe is fact unless abiogenesis is fact. This is not about science, necessarily... it's has much to do with philosophy.

*******************

The point of the IDer's, I think, is to not be pigeonholed by some definition of Science... but rather to consider other truths that exists but can't be pushed into a test tube... or tested empirically.

And I don't think they are saying that we should run around claiming that God did everything.

Btw, at what point does does Anecdotal data become Empirical data?

Reality is what is left when you stop believing in it.

The point is that science should teach the best science available and all those classes are free to teach whatever they want.

The twin threats to science of cutting research because the administration doesn't like the answers and forcing classes to teach unfounded science is a threat to America and its place in the world.

But the Non-Evos counter: we need to prove that life came from non-life or abiogenesis.

The "Non-Evos" are simply wrong, then. The theory of evolution does not address life originating from non-life.

If we don't know how this game started by naturalistic, evolutionary processes then how do we know that it happened by naturalistic and evolutionary processes?

This would seem to suggest that a partial history of a sequence of events cannot be known unless the entire history is known. This is clearly a fallacious line of thinking.

The point of the IDer's, I think, is to not be pigeonholed by some definition of Science... but rather to consider other truths that exists but can't be pushed into a test tube... or tested empirically.

If a concept cannot be tested, then it is not a useful model of reality. It becomes mere baseless speculation, and is of little if any use at all.

And I don't think they are saying that we should run around claiming that God did everything.

It is true that Intelligent Design does not invoke a deity specifically, however I find it troubling that a number of ID advocates seem to believe that it does. I find it difficult to take a field of study seriously when a significant portion of its own advocates clearly do not understand it.