Yes I can. If someone is seeking to teach creationism/ID in a science class, they are seeking to replace science with religious instruction.
Creationism/ID is not science, and the recent attempts to pretend that it is merely another scientific theory is nothing more than window dressing.
Is that how science works to you? Repress any counterevidences for fear of being exposed?
Absolutely not. If there are criticisms of a scientific theory that themselves adhere to the scientific method, those criticisms are invaluable. The theory of evolution has been greatly strenghthened, from over a century of scientific observation, testing, and refinement. The more this particular theory is "exposed" to actual scientific scrutiny, the stronger it has become.
If you can either disprove, modify, or refine the theory of evolution using another scientific theory, then science would welcome your contribution. If you merely seek to tear down science that conflicts with your own particular religious belief, as is the case for creationism/ID, then keep it in your own house of worship, thank you very much.
[[Yes I can. If someone is seeking to teach creationism/ID in a science class, they are seeking to replace science with religious instruction. ]]
You didn’t point out anythign but a biased LIE- ID presents evidence and facts- they do NOT posit who or what the intelligence is, only that IC can NOT arise via naturalistic means- that’s ALL they do-
[[Creationism/ID is not science,]]
This is a biased a priori dogmatic statement that is detached from the reality of hte issue-
[[Absolutely not. If there are criticisms of a scientific theory that themselves adhere to the scientific method, those criticisms are invaluable.]]
Well sir, you are in luck- ID is just that.
[[The theory of evolution has been greatly strenghthened, from over a century of scientific observation, testing, and refinement.]]
This is anotherl ie- it has NOT been strengthened, but just the opposite- the more we try to replicate it, test it, examine it, the more we find out just how impossible it really is- it violates several key fundamental laws of science, and is an impossibility who’s adherants must hterefore rely on ASSUMPTIONS that can NOT be proved, demonstrated or shown in the lab.
[[If you can either disprove, modify, or refine the theory of evolution using another scientific theory, then science would welcome your contribution.]]
That’s a load of manure- ID brings hte evidnece agaisnt it, and ID is fiercely opposed by scientists like Miller, Dawkins, and many other congregationalists of Darwin.
[[If you merely seek to tear down science that conflicts with your own particular religious belief, as is the case for creationism/ID, then keep it in your own house of worship, thank you very much.]]
It’s coming ot a school near you- and thnakfully so- It’s about time kids are taught the TRUTH abotu Macroevolution instead of being handed a myth that violates the very foundational principles upon which scence stands on.