What Does the Fossil Record Show?

Creation or Evolution: Does it Really Matter What You Believe? ^ | 1998 | Various

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Continuous is correct.

[Coyoteman]

BUT YOU DO APOLOGETICS SIR, YOU DO.

You have to go to the eighth definition on a "Define:apologetics" google to get a non-religious meaning, and that definition is from Wikipedia, hence suspect. Apologetics is "defense of religious belief":

• The term apologetics comes from the Greek apologia, which means "defense" or "answer." Apologetics is the task of defending a particular idea or belief system and answering its critics. The origin of the concept of apologetics lies in the beginnings of Christianity. Between the second and fourth century, a number of Christian teachers wrote defenses of Christianity against pagan critics.

• The defense of the Christian faith on intellectual grounds by trained theologians and philosophers.

• A conscious, articulated defense of the claims of the Christian Faith. The two main apologetic methods are classical (evidential) and presuppositional.

• The branch of theology which deals with the defensive facts and proofs of Christianity

• Argumentative defence. That part of theology which tries to show the reasonableness of Christian faith and to refute objections to it.

• an evangelistic approach that is concerned with increasing understanding of Christianity by answering reasonable questions about the faith (Whittaker).

• the branch of theology that is concerned with the defense of Christian doctrines

• Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist.The term comes from the Greek word apologia (?πolog?a), meaning the defense of a position against an attack, not from the English word apology, which is exclusively understood as a defensive plea for forgiveness for an action that is open to blame.

[PatrickHenry]

The lack of dissenting views is evidence for the lack of dissenting views.

Finally you admit it!

Oh, if you wanna see an example of plagiarism, check out this shameless example. The plagiarism is exposed as early as post 4, and it goes downhill for the plagiarist from there.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Continuous is correct."

Discrete and gradual is better. Gould and Darwin both promoted discrete and gradual theories.

[VadeRetro]

Oh, if you wanna see an example of plagiarism, check out this shameless example...

I raised that with someone already on this thread, someone who should really want to deal with it. He linked three antiscience screeds from True Origins in "response."

I wanted to give the guy the benefit of the doubt but have to admit it's starting to look fishy.

[SirLinksalot]

Wikipedia, hence suspect. Apologetics is "defense of religious belief":

PRECISELY. BELIEF IN HUMAN LIFE COMING FROM NATURAL SELECTION PLUS RANDOM MUTATION *IS*, FOR ME, AKIN TO RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

[stormer]

" If you can't read the Bible as a work of fiction..."

I don't believe I referenced the bible directly, but there are a large number of religious texts, each the work of man and each fiction.

The "arrangement of rock", as you put it, has been the subject of debate since before the term geology was even coined. I may refer you to the 17th century works of Niels Stensen, aka Nicolai Stenosis, aka Bishop Nicolaus Steno, aka Saint Nicolaus Steno, and his views which have come to be regarded as "Steno's Principles".

If you are interested (which I doubt you are), you will find a wealth of information regarding the nature and structure of sedimentary rock and qualities regarding their deposition. These principles were in place long before evolutionary theory (as defined by Darwin) was developed.

Your final question, "What does the theory of evolution add to the condition of mankind?", is both interesting and troubling. Interesting in its ability to ignore the human capacity for knowledge and man's inquiry about that which is unknown, and troubling in that willful ignorance while engaged in the study of the natural world doesn't seem to bother you at all.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"BELIEF IN HUMAN LIFE COMING FROM NATURAL SELECTION PLUS RANDOM MUTATION *IS*, FOR ME, AKIN TO RELIGIOUS BELIEF."

When anything and everything can be called *religious*, religion will have no meaning. How postmodernist of you.

BTW, your caps are locked.

[SirLinksalot]

When anything and everything can be called *religious*, religion will have no meaning. How postmodernist of you.

The dictionary defines religion and among the definitions is this :

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The way the cause of Natural Selection plus Random mutation actually producing life is being actively pursued with such zeal and devotion, I would say it fits THIS definition.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The dictionary defines religion and among the definitions is this :"

That's the fourth definition. You had to go to that to get a loose, mamby-pamby definition that makes anything someone pursues with more than halfhearted interest as a religion.

"The way the cause of Natural Selection plus Random mutation actually producing life is being actively pursued with such zeal and devotion, I would say it fits THIS definition."

Of course you would. You like meaningless postmodernist definitions.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The way the cause of Natural Selection plus Random mutation actually producing life..."

Oh, missed that before. Nobody says that is how life formed.

[burroak]

I can appreciate your learned affectation, but my point was not to dismiss that collection of information. You and like minds just arrange the rock to satisfy your need to order the universe without a God in it. Evos have to make peace with themselves because of their athiest mindsets.

Believing in Creationism takes but one leap of faith. Evos take leap after leap and call it academic rigor. Just make the connection from species to species factually.

[SirLinksalot]

You had to go to that to get a loose, mamby-pamby definition that makes anything someone pursues with more than halfhearted interest as a religion.

Between the Dictionary and you, I take the former thank you.

Of course you would. You like meaningless postmodernist definitions.

And you like to ignore the dictionary definition of words. I'll take that back, you pick and choose which item in the dictionary you prefer. I don't. Listen, when people start buying the dictionary you create, then maybe I'll consider you an expert but not until.

[SirLinksalot]

Oh, missed that before. Nobody says that is how life formed.

Good, then Intelligence formed it then. I have no arguments with you here.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Between the Dictionary and you, I take the former thank you."

Then you still lose, because three out of the four definitions were about God.

"And you like to ignore the dictionary definition of words."

And you like to ignore the first three definitions for one that makes *religion* mean just about anything. I really like playing guitar, you can call it an enthusiasm. By the fourth definition you chose to use (which is never used in the context you are trying to force it into), guitar playing would be a religion to me.

Posting at FR is a religion to you, by that definition. That definition effectively neuters the word of any significance.

"I'll take that back, you pick and choose which item in the dictionary you prefer."

That's hilarious!! YOU are the one who picked the fourth, vague, and seldom used definition and deliberately ignored the 3 above that concern a believe in God/ the supernatural.

Do you even READ what you write before you post? lol

"Good, then Intelligence formed it then. I have no arguments with you here."

There is no evidence any intelligence formed life. That is consistent with saying it wasn't natural selection plus mutations.

[SirLinksalot]

Then you still lose, because three out of the four definitions were about God.

NOPE, I DON'T LOSE. IT IS A VALID USAGE OF THE WORD. And you like to ignore the first three definitions for one that makes *religion* mean just about anything.

NOPE. I AGREE WITH ALL THE DEFINITIONS. INCLUDING THE FOURTH.

I really like playing guitar, you can call it an enthusiasm. By the fourth definition you chose to use (which is never used in the context you are trying to force it into), guitar playing would be a religion to me.

1) PLAYING THE GUITAR IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO BELIEVING THAT NS+RM CAN CREATE LIFE.

2) LIKING A GUITAR IS A PREFERENCE, DEFENDING SOMETHING AS TRUE OR FALSE IS NOT THE SAME.

Posting at FR is a religion to you, by that definition. That definition effectively neuters the word of any significance.

DEFENDING METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM, WHICH EFFECTIVELY MAKES A CLAIM ABOUT ULTIMATE CAUSES *IS* IN EFFECT, A STATEMENT OF THE ULTIMATE. IT IS IN EFFECT A STATEMENT OF FAITH. If design is ruled out, not for evidentiary reasons but for philosophical ones, then you prejudge the question and the investigation. Can you imagine applying methodological naturalism to an arson investigation where the issue is whether the fire was designed or accidental? If we tell the arson investigator to ignore the empty gas can and trail of accelerant leading to the center of the house where the fire started as well as all other evidence of design, can we ever believe the findings of the investigator? The same problem arises when you ask what causes life and its diversity. If only one of two possible answers is allowed, then the one allowed can never be logically or scientifically credible.

That's hilarious!!

I'm glad to make your day.

YOU are the one who picked the fourth, vague, and seldom used definition and deliberately ignored the 3 above that concern a believe in God/ the supernatural.

HA HA HA. THAT's HILARIOUS, VAGUE INDEED. VAGUE TO YOU BUT NOT TO ME. IT's there in the dcitionary. What rule in the universe says it can't be used ?

Do you even READ what you write before you post? lol

OF COURSE, LOL. There is no evidence any intelligence formed life.

There's a religious statement right there. There is no evidence that NS+RM formed life as well. That is consistent with saying it wasn't natural selection plus mutations.

SURE IT IS. I'll make it even more clear --- It is more likely that intelligence formed life than NS+RM. If you disagree, that does not escape the fact that you are making in effect, a religious statement.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"NOPE, I DON'T LOSE. IT IS A VALID USAGE OF THE WORD."

Not in this context. In the way you are trying to use it, it makes *religious* lose the meaning it almost always has.

"NOPE. I AGREE WITH ALL THE DEFINITIONS. INCLUDING THE FOURTH. "

I do not disagree with the definition, I disagree with the usage. The way you use it, *religious* could apply to gardening or jogging.

"1) PLAYING THE GUITAR IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO BELIEVING THAT NS+RM CAN CREATE LIFE."

But using the definition you use for *religious*, it fits in just fine. I play guitar religiously. It is not my religion.

"2) LIKING A GUITAR IS A PREFERENCE, DEFENDING SOMETHING AS TRUE OR FALSE IS NOT THE SAME."

Now you are straying from your own chosen definition of *religious*. Try to stay focused.

"DEFENDING METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM, WHICH EFFECTIVELY MAKES A CLAIM ABOUT ULTIMATE CAUSES *IS* IN EFFECT, A STATEMENT OF THE ULTIMATE. IT IS IN EFFECT A STATEMENT OF FAITH."

You are losing it. Try some meditation, it may clear your mind.

BTW, methodoligical naturalism is a neccessity for ALL science. There is no way to do science without it.

"If design is ruled out..."

It isn't.

"Can you imagine applying methodological naturalism to an arson investigation where the issue is whether the fire was designed or accidental?"

Sure. That's what is used. Investigators do not postulate supernatural causes for fires.

"If we tell the arson investigator to ignore the empty gas can and trail of accelerant leading to the center of the house where the fire started..."

... they would be ignoring methodological naturalism.

"I'm glad to make your day."

:)

"HA HA HA. THAT's HILARIOUS, VAGUE INDEED. VAGUE TO YOU BUT NOT TO ME."

Because you like postmodernist, mamby-pamby definitions that muddy meaning.

"There's a religious statement right there."

No, it's a scientific statement. There is no evidence any intelligence formed life. Your definition of *religious* continues to evolve, ironically.

"There is no evidence that NS+RM formed life as well."

True. Nobody says it did.


Your caps are locked again. Have they stopped giving you your meds?

[SirLinksalot]

---

Not in this context. In the way you are trying to use it, it makes *religious* lose the meaning it almost always has.

---

NOPE IT DOES NOT.

IN FACT RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY DEFINES RELIGION THUSLY :

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."

If no intelligence created the universe, then the alternative is
it has its own material cause and ultimately has a different purpose.

You CANNOT ULTIMATELY avoid making are religious statement regardless of how
you try to avoid it.

---

I do not disagree with the definition, I disagree with the usage. The way you use it,
*religious* could apply to gardening or jogging.

---

UH UH. Pertaining to the ultimate cause and nature of the universe, it does not.

---

But using the definition you use for *religious*, it fits in just fine.
I play guitar religiously. It is not my religion.

---

But in your response you imply that the universe has no intelligence cause,
that isn't like playing the guitar, that is defending a belief concerning
the cause and nature of the universe.

The possibility of intelligent cause is more likely than random chance.

---

Now you are straying from your own chosen definition of *religious*.
Try to stay focused.

---

If you read my response above, I believe I am.

---

You are losing it. Try some meditation, it may clear your mind.

---

Please follow your own advice.

---

BTW, methodoligical naturalism is a neccessity for ALL science. There is no way
to do science without it.

---

Why ? This is not a tenet deducible by the experimental method, but a
philosophical assumption from outside science.

This conveniently ignores the creationist contributions to the founding of science.
Creationists agree that the particles would not behave arbitrarily,
because they were created by a God of order. But I don't know how an atheist
can have philosophical justification from his underlying premise, i.e.
‘God does not exist’, for a belief in an orderly universe.

Evolution, if taken strictly in the Richard Dawkins sense is ultimately a question
of origins science which is really about history.

Isaac Newton discovered the spectrum of light, James Clerk Maxwell discovered the
laws of electromagnetism which led to the prediction of electromagnetic radiation;
Louis Pasteur formulated the germ theory of disease and disproved spontaneous
generation, Joseph Lister pioneered antiseptic surgery; Raymond Damadian pioneered
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that is a vital tool in brain research. Guess
what they all have in common ? THEY ARE ALL BELIEVERS IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

The argument I often hear is even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it
does not mean that all are.

Actually, the arguments are based on analogy, a common scientific procedure, about
what we can observe being produced by intelligent and unintelligent causes.

---

"If design is ruled out..."

It isn't.

---

Well, thank you, that's all I wanted to hear.

Therefore, the Dover lawsuit is a bad idea and it was bad decision.

---

Investigators do not postulate supernatural causes for fires.

---

And who said that Intelligence has to be SUPERNATURAL ?
There are many agnostics in the ID movement who don't invoke the supernatural.

---

"I'm glad to make your day."

:)

---

:) TO YOU TOO :) :-)

---

Because you like postmodernist, mamby-pamby definitions that muddy meaning.

---

I don't think my definitions are muddy, they are in fact USAGE WELL UNDERSTOOD.
You are the one who refuse to face the implications of your worldview.

---

No, it's a scientific statement. There is no evidence any intelligence formed life.

---

And there is evidence that Random chance formed life ? That's a scientific statement ?
Nope, that's a statement of faith right there.

---

Your definition of *religious* continues to evolve, ironically.

---

Nope, your understanding of the word religion fails to catch the ultimate implication
of many Evolutionists.

This exchange was prompted by someone who argued that the link I provided
for the DISCOVERY website article is NOT valid scientfically because it
is APOLOGETICS.

My argument is DISCOVERY FELLOWS are NOT ALL believers in God. Many are agnostic.

Therefore, the implication that those who argue against evolution ( especially
NS+RM forming life ) is misleading to say the least.

---

True. Nobody says it did.

---

Good, then there are at least two possibilities -- intelligence and NS+RM.

But to say nobody says it did is to ignore men like
Richard Dawkins and his myriad supporters. SOMEBODY SAID
IT DID.

I gather you are agnostic about it. For me, in the light of current evidence,

I favor the former.

Which means there should be no legal coercion against some teacher FREELY wanting students
to read about the alternative to methodological naturalism.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"NOPE IT DOES NOT."

Sure it does. That is why you want to use it, because it's such a vague definition.


"IN FACT RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY DEFINES RELIGION THUSLY :"

Funny, I got this when looking at Random House's definition:



"-is a concern over what exists beyond the visible world (operating through faith and intuition, as opposed to reason);
-generally includes the idea of the existence of a single being, a group of beings, an eternal principle, or transcendental spiritual entity that has created the world, that governs it, that controls its destinies, or that intervenes occasionally in the natural course of its history;
-is a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects; and
-is the idea that ritual, prayer, spiritual exercises, or certain principles and conduct arise naturally as a human response to the belief in such a being or eternal principle."

Here is the ones you decided to ignore earlier:

n.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


If you want to do a *battle of the dictionaries*, you will lose. The vast majority of definitions for religion are about belief in a supernatural agent.

"Why ? This is not a tenet deducible by the experimental method, but a
philosophical assumption from outside science."

It IS the experimental method. There is no way to operate scientifically without methodological naturalism.

"Well, thank you, that's all I wanted to hear.

Therefore, the Dover lawsuit is a bad idea and it was bad decision. "

No, design isn't ruled out because there is no way to do so. There is no way to make it a part of science. It's not a scientific claim, it's a theological claim. It's untestable.

"And who said that Intelligence has to be SUPERNATURAL ? "

Nobody.

"I don't think my definitions are muddy,..."

That's probably true for you.

"And there is evidence that Random chance formed life ? That's a scientific statement ?"

Nobody says that *random chance* formed life.

"This exchange was prompted by someone who argued that the link I provided
for the DISCOVERY website article is NOT valid scientfically because it
is APOLOGETICS."

It's not science because it's untestable theology.

"Therefore, the implication that those who argue against evolution ( especially
NS+RM forming life )"

Nobody says that NS+mutations formed life.

"Good, then there are at least two possibilities -- intelligence and NS+RM."

Nobody is saying that NS+mutations was responsible for the formation of life. ID as the cause is untestable.

"But to say nobody says it did is to ignore men like
Richard Dawkins and his myriad supporters. SOMEBODY SAID
IT DID. "

No they didn't.

"Which means there should be no legal coercion against some teacher FREELY wanting students
to read about the alternative to methodological naturalism. "

In their private school, fine. In a government school, ID has no place in a science class, as it's not even close to being science.
Your caps are still on. Please take those meds.

[SirLinksalot]

---

Sure it does. That is why you want to use it, because it's such a vague definition.

---

WHAT's VAGUE FOR YOU IS CLEAR FOR ME.

---

"-is a concern over what exists beyond the visible world (operating through faith and intuition, as opposed to reason);
-generally includes the idea of the existence of a single being, a group of beings, an eternal principle, or transcendental spiritual entity that has created the world, that governs it, that controls its destinies, or that intervenes occasionally in the natural course of its history;
-is a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects; and
-is the idea that ritual, prayer, spiritual exercises, or certain principles and conduct arise naturally as a human response to the belief in such a being or eternal principle."

---

MIRRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY :

relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged *ultimate reality* or deity.

Here is one from WORDSMYTH :

a set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of the universe, usually involving belief in a supernatural creator and offering guidance in ethics and morals.

SEE HERE :
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Religion

WIKTIONARY says thusly :

A system of beliefs that involves the existence or *nonexistence* of at least one of: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of one’s body.

Usage notes

Generally speaking, systems of belief that do not involve the existence of one or more deities, such as Buddhism, can be considered a religion, though some people prefer a stricter definition that excludes the possibility of a non-theistic religion. Others are in favor of a very general definition of religion: that any belief or system of beliefs is a religion or part of a religion, including science and atheism.


So no, I am not a postmodernist, this is perfectly acceptable usage. And if the quotes of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins are to be taken seriously, I'd say
they qualify.

Remember who said this with conviction :

"The Cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be."

Which leads to the next question --- HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT ?

You might want to read the furious exchange between Michael Ruse ( an agnostic and
evolutionist I admire ) and Richard Dawkins ( who I don't ).

SEE HERE : http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/844

Also, see here :

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/46165;jsessionid=baa6gWCz81

Here is what Michael Ruse says of Richard Dawkins :

"Dawkins is an interesting case. If being deeply interested in and committed to these various issues counts as religious—as well as having strong moral feelings (especially about the wickedness of existing religion)—then I would say he is religious. He reminds me a bit of Calvin. More than this, he clearly thinks that his Darwinism is incompatible with Christianity, so it does have theological implications. On the other hand, he does not want to tie in the course of nature with morality—as did Julian Huxley and as does Ed Wilson—so I would be hesitant to call him a secular humanist or whatever, as I would them. Don't forget that terms like religious are terms that can stretch and can support different usages."

---

Here is the ones you decided to ignore earlier:

---

UH UH, CAN'T LET YOU GET AWAY WITH THIS. I did not IGNORE the definitions, I *INCLUDED* the definitions that DESCRIBE the belief systems of many evolutionists.

This of course includes ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF *ULTIMATE REALITY*, or a set of beliefs that explain the ORIGINS and PURPOSE of the universe.

The difference -- YOU *LIMIT* the definition, I DON'T.

Consider this usage of the word by Robert Jastrow...

Robert Jastrow is perhaps the nation's most prominent astronomer. In a book entitled God and the Astronomers, Jastrow, who is an agnostic, one who declares an
intelligent conclusion cannot be drawn regarding the existence of God, confesses:

"There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe, and every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event.... This religious faith of the
scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid (p. 111-­112)."

So, is Jastrow a post-modernist now ?

---

If you want to do a *battle of the dictionaries*, you will lose.

---

My purpose is not to "win", my purpose is to determine what is true. If your arguments win, and they win on merit, in what sense do I lose ? The truth wins out and
that's what matters to me.

Also, this is not a battle of dictionaries, it is an excercise in determining the SENSE of the word. My usage is ACCEPTABLE based on what the dictionaries
tell me.

---

The vast majority of definitions for religion are about belief in a
supernatural agent.

---

AND THEY ALSO INCLUDE ---- acknowledgement of *ultimate reality*.

Wiktionary's usage notes states :

that any belief or system of beliefs is a religion or part of a religion, including science and atheism.

I Do not ignore that.

---

It IS the experimental method. There is no way to operate scientifically without
methodological naturalism.

---

Well I can see the problem with FOSSILS then.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

-You Ask A Question

-Form An Hypothesis

-Research

-Experiment

-Analyze Your Experiment

-Draw Conclusions

-Repeat Experiment

In order form something to qualify as science it must follow the Scientific Method.

In any scientific endeavor there must be repeated experimentation. If an experiment cannot be done, an idea (no matter how wild it is or seems) is just that, an idea.

A person can look at the supposed "evidence for evolution", but unless he or she can do the same in an experiment, I don't see how you can present this as fact. Not when the observation does not match what you say you expect.

---

No, design isn't ruled out because there is no way to do so. There is no way to
make it a part of science. It's not a scientific claim, it's a theological claim.

---

And by default NS+RM is science ? How is that a scientific claim ? Where is are experimentation and the results ?

In everyday life, we ASSUME that when we see order and complexity, that intelligence is behind it, how is that a theological claim ?

---

It's untestable.

---

Well, I'd be glad for you to show me the results of tests that shows random mutation, chance actually produced a bacterial flagellum, just as one example.

---

"And who said that Intelligence has to be SUPERNATURAL ? "

Nobody.

---

Well good, then you seem to be agreeing with a lot of ID proponents.

They leave the identity of the intelligent agent UNKNOWN.

In fact, Francis Crick a Nobel prize winning scientist, a co-discoverer of the DNA, toyed with the idea of "panspermia," the notion that life was "seeded" upon the earth in the long ago by alien space creatures. THAT IS *ID* right there.

Francis Crick frankly admitted that, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself 1981, p. 88).

---

It's not science because it's untestable theology.

---

I believe William Dembski responded to this claim.

I'll cut and paste it in his response to the great George Will's critique...

"The deeper concern is that intelligent design is not science because it is not testable. If ID were not testable, you would have a point. But the fact is that ID is eminently testable, a fact that is easy to see.

To test ID, it is enough to show how systems that ID claims lie beyond the reach of Darwinian and other evolutionary mechanisms are in fact attainable via such mechanisms. For instance, ID proponents have offered arguments for why non-teleological evolutionary mechanisms should be unable to produce systems like the bacterial flagellum (see chapter 5 of my book No Free Lunch [Rowman & Littlefield, 2002] and Michael Behe’s essay in my co-edited collection titled Debating Design [Cambridge, 2004]).

Moreover, critics of ID have tacitly assumed this burden of proof — see Ken Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God (Harper, 1999) or Ian Musgrave’s failed attempt to provide a plausible evolutionary story for the bacterial flagellum in Why Intelligent Design Fails (Rutgers, 2004).

Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design.

Unhappy with thus allowing ID on the playing field of science, evolutionary theorist
now typically try the following gambit: Intelligent design, they say, constitutes an argument from ignorance or god-of-the-gaps, in which gaps in the evolutionary story are plugged by invoking intelligence. But if intelligent design by definition
constitutes such a god-of-the-gaps, then evolutionary theory in turn becomes untestable, for in that case no failures in evolutionary explanation or positive evidence for ID could ever overturn evolutionary theory.

I cited earlier Darwin’s well-known statement, “If it could be demonstrated that any
complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Immediately after this statement Darwin added, “But I can find out no such case.”

Darwin so much as admits here that his theory is immune to disconfirmation. Indeed, how could any contravening evidence ever be found if the burden of proof on the evolution critic is to rule out all conceivable evolutionary pathways — pathways that are left completely unspecified.

In consequence, Darwin’s own criterion for defeating his theory is impossible to meet and effectively shields his theory from disconfirmation. Unless ID is admitted
onto the scientific playing field, mechanistic theories of evolution win the day in the absence of evidence, making them a priori, untestable principles rather than inferences from scientific evidence.

Bottom line: For a claim to ascertainably true it must be possible for it to be ascertainably false. The fate of ID and evolutionary theory, whether as science or
non-science, are thus inextricably bound. No surprise therefore that Darwin’s Origin of Species requires ID as a foil throughout."

---

In their private school, fine. In a government school, ID has no place in a science
class, as it's not even close to being science.

---

Disagree. The TAX-PAYING DOVER community decides what they want in their curriculum as in any other community. THEY PAY THEIR TAXES, THEY MAKE THEIR DECISION.

Federal JUDGES are NOT QUALIFIED to make decisions on this.

If tax-paying community A wants ID presented as part of a class in biology, I say let them.

If tax-Paying community B DOES NOT want ID presented as part of a class in biology, fine with me, AS LONG AS THEY GET TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES.

I gather that one community in Kentucky ALLOWED ID to be presented and Dover recently VOTED OUT the board members who Allowed ID to be presented. BOTH ARE FINE WITH ME.

The communities decide and THAT is where it should be made.

The key word is -- VOTED. That is the bottom line for me in a free society. PEOPLE GET TO DECIDE.

---

Your caps are still on. Please take those meds.

---

Are vitamins considered meds ? Who is the postmodernist now ?

:)