ID is not science of any kind, so it has to pretend. So far, junk science is about as high as its pretensions and aspirations have been. If it had been trying to be a real science it would not be pushed largely by a PR campaign by a religiously-funded "think" tank, the Discovery Institute. Rather, it would be doing research and other scientific endeavors and trying to get into respected peer-reviewed science journals.
I do not wish to debate Evolution with someone who makes up their own rules and definitions as they go along, so as to handicap their opponent.
Science works under a pretty-much fixed set of definitions, and these do not change at a whim. I have a good list of these definitions on my FR home page. I did not make them up; some are from respected websites such as CalTech.
What does change as one goes along is the definitions used by creationists. For example, theory, as used by scientists, becomes "theory" (a wild guess) when used by creationists. They do this to imply (dishonestly) that the theory of evolution is not real science but is just "a theory."
Look at the transcript of the Dover trial and note Behe's definition of theory under cross examination. He had to admit under oath that his definition of theory (deliberately made as vague as possible so that ID qualifies) also includes astrology!
I am afraid what "handicaps our opponents" is their inability to do science rather than any changes in definitions on the part of science. Science refuses to change its methods and definitions to include religion and other non-scientific beliefs, and this is a pretty large handicap for those pushing religion. Hence, their resort to dishonesty (“cdesign proponentsists" for example).
But why is there such an emphasis on pretending to do science on the part of IDers? Because they are seeking the respectability of science without having to do the work (that's kind of like buying your Ph.D. from a diploma mill for $30). And they are seeking scientific respectability to get back into the classrooms. Creationism and creation "science" have been removed from sciences classes by U.S. Supreme Court decisions, so some way had to be found to sneak religion back in. "Hey, lets pretend to be science! We can get some creationists elected to school boards and they can help us sneak this one through!") This little trick hasn't been ruled on yet by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it was ruled on by a Federal District Court (Dover). ID was determined to be religion in disguise.
That's why ID has a hard time being taken seriously by scientists. Its religion, not science!
>>That’s why ID has a hard time being taken seriously by scientists. Its religion, not science! <<
ID is not science, I agree. But it is really not religion as most define religion. Religion generally involves the worship of a deity as creator. ID simply says there was one. The demons discussed below would not really be considered “religious”.
James 2:19 (New International Version)
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
[ID is not science of any kind, so it has to pretend. So far, junk science is about as high as its pretensions and aspirations have been. If it had been trying to be a real science it would not be pushed largely by a PR campaign by a religiously-funded "think" tank, the Discovery Institute. Rather, it would be doing research and other scientific endeavors and trying to get into respected peer-reviewed science journals.]
My observation leads me to believe that, you consider any source of research that does not support the position you take on Evolution, to be non-scientific in nature.
[Science works under a pretty-much fixed set of definitions, and these do not change at a whim. I have a good list of these definitions on my FR home page. I did not make them up; some are from respected websites such as CalTech.]
Science should be perfectly compatible with regular dictionary definitions from 1981.
Anything that needs its own different set of definitions is theology.
[What does change as one goes along is the definitions used by creationists. For example, theory, as used by scientists, becomes "theory" (a wild guess) when used by creationists. They do this to imply (dishonestly) that the theory of evolution is not real science but is just "a theory."]
Are you claiming that Creationists change the meaning of a word half way through a sentence?
Or are you saying that, Evolutionists use words differently than Creationists.
According to "The New Britannica-Webster DICTIONARY & REFERENCE GUIDE":
| theory 1: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory> -- compare PRACTICE 2: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 3 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: SUPPOSITION 1, CONJECTURE 4: abstract thought : SPECULATION SYN: SEE HYPOTHESIS |
| theoretical 1 a: relating to or having the character of theory : ABSTRACT b: confined to theory or speculation : SPECULATIVE <theoretical mechanics> 2: given to or skilled in theorizing 3: existing only in theory : HYPOTHETICAL |
(bold emphasis mine)
To me, it appears You have made a blunder that many ID proponents make [concerning the days of creation], in assuming a word has only one meaning.
Now it may be that a particular word has only one suitable use in a specific setting, but to say Creationists are changing the definition is incorrect.
(Requiring a word [with multiple meanings] be used as though it has a single definition is not science, but dogma.)
[Look at the transcript of the Dover trial and note Behe's definition of theory under cross examination. He had to admit under oath that his definition of theory (deliberately made as vague as possible so that ID qualifies) also includes astrology!]
I would have to say that Webster agrees with Dr. Behe.
[I am afraid what "handicaps our opponents" is their inability to do science rather than any changes in definitions on the part of science. Science refuses to change its methods and definitions to include religion and other non-scientific beliefs, and this is a pretty large handicap for those pushing religion. Hence, their resort to dishonesty (“cdesign proponentsists" for example).]
I would agree that your opponents are wholly incapable of doing evolutionary science to your standard.
[But why is there such an emphasis on pretending to do science on the part of IDers? Because they are seeking the respectability of science without having to do the work (that's kind of like buying your Ph.D. from a diploma mill for $30). And they are seeking scientific respectability to get back into the classrooms. Creationism and creation "science" have been removed from sciences classes by U.S. Supreme Court decisions, so some way had to be found to sneak religion back in. "Hey, lets pretend to be science! We can get some creationists elected to school boards and they can help us sneak this one through!") This little trick hasn't been ruled on yet by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it was ruled on by a Federal District Court (Dover). ID was determined to be religion in disguise.]
Any dogmatic hypothesis or theory of origins is theology.
[That's why ID has a hard time being taken seriously by scientists. Its religion, not science!]
More correctly, ID goes against everything most scientist have been taught.
Summation:
(Note: I will be using the word "proved" below, with the meaning of "found to be correct more than 95% of the time")
If ID is completely false, and Evolutionary hypothesis has been empirically proved, then whats the issue?
Shouldn't ID just vanish away much like Bloodletting did?
If Evolution has been empirically proved and ID has no substantial evidence, then the proponents of Evolution should not be required to debate the ID issue.
Don't we all know that 'religion' cannot threaten science?
And if ID is just religion with no substantial evidence, why is science so afraid of it?
It has been said that, the majority is right most of the time.(paraphrase)
That said, if Evolution really doesn't have anything to fear from ID, why not teach both, side-by-side, in public schools and see which one the students decide is correct?
(That is, after all, the most democratic thing to do)
Then, if Evolution is found to be correct, the argument for ID will be over.
But when people say that Evolution has been proved and that students should not see both sides of the argument, it becomes a dogma and the probability of evidence existing for ID becomes quite high.
As a side note, I happen to know that, when Evolution and ID are tought side-by-side, the students get it right.
(In other words, they figure out what is true, not what is popular.)