We're supposed to be discussing the concept of ID and whether it's scientific, and further, whether it will continue. One side appears to be presenting facts and evidence, and the other side can't seem to grasp what science is. I've just read a post that claimed, on the basis of no evidence whatever, that rationality cannot exist unless we assume an entity for which there is no evidence. After a certain number of exchanges, both sides hurl insults, which is typical. I find the debate quite frustrating,
It’s quite high isn’t it.
I'll take it for granted that you encoded a sarcasm tag.
Are you aware of the content of a significant part of public school curriculum these days? To introduce ID would elevate the quality of education.
I have a son in his freshman year of high school. My wife is the director of education at a franchise of a nationally-respected tutoring business. So let's say I have a good layman's grasp of "public school curriculum." Not surprisingly, it varies radically, depending on the locality, the dedication of the school board, the interest level of the parents, the administration & faculty of the school, and, of course, the student. In our school system, it's okay. A couple of towns away, it's pretty ghastly.
But I'd be interested in finding out why you think that introducing a concept that doesn't bother with using scientific concepts (except in the pejorative sense of "using"), will improve things.
Facts? Man made facts? Are they factual? Are they made up? Who came up with these theories and then said they were factual? Science is man made. I rest my case.
“We're supposed to be discussing the concept of ID and whether it's scientific, and further, whether it will continue.”
“…I'd be interested in finding out why you think that introducing a concept that doesn't bother with using scientific concepts (except in the pejorative sense of "using"), will improve things.”
Intelligent design (pay careful attention to this) is a theory which involves trying to form a conclusion by just thinking about things. The approach of intelligent design is to analyze phenomena, through the use of logic and math, in order to reach a conclusion. The a priori approach. Not appropriate for public education? It’s what Einstein did. Remember, Einstein’s ideas were not verified immediately and were highly controversial.
Intelligent design includes the laws of mathematics. It does not violate them—there, that eliminates a lot of unnecessary arguments seen in this thread.
Moving along. Known facts of chemistry, biology and physics arise from deductive logic, starting with observations and measurements of particular phenomena, in a way that can be tested by science. The theory of evolution, specifically speciation as posted by Cicero above, does not. For the sake of an accurate understanding, please devote time and careful attention to grasping this fact.
We are all susceptible to various forms of weakness. That includes moments (brief we hope) of intellectual confusion like that suffered by those who have missed the fact that the theory of evolution demands a glaring leap of faith.