B: Scientist's response: Follow the evidence only if it is natural. Otherwise, the foundations of science will be shaken (and that is a bad thing how?).
Hmmmm. Do I get a star if I pick 'A'?
"Intelligent design" need only mean that a life form, originating somewhere else in the universe via natural means, had/has the ability to manipulate the development of life here on earth. As the saying goes, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable....."
From m-w.com:
Main Entry: natural science
Function: noun
: any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena - natural scientist noun
Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
If evolutionists keep saying the sky is falling if you teach that evolution can be doubted and, 'while seeing the evolutionist's way of looking at things, have a look at this, too...'--if they keep saying this will ruin the country, they will quickly lose credibility...
No true scientist would claim to possess absolute truth, or to be able to decide what is absolutely true. What the naturalistic materialists who insist that the evolutionary model for explaining the origin of life, and the virtually indescribable diversity of form and function through which it finds expression, are doing is a grave disservice to true science and to the gift of reason, not to mention a great disservice to the children we send to government schools. It troubled me, when I had children in school, to have to tell them that their teachers were telling them things that were not true, or at least were not known to be true.
One of the shortest tests ever ...
Q. What is blah blah?
A. "Goddidit."
Correct! Here's your gold star.
1. A physical explanation is not the same thing as a physical cause, much less a physical first cause. So evolution in itself (which posits a physical explanation) poses no threat whatsoever to Christian belief. In fact highly improbable events at the macro-level can occur without violation of any physical laws at the micro-level. God didn't have to will the violation of any physical laws at the micro-level in order to bring about the creation of life, or different species of life.
2. However, when evolutionists start talking about "chance" or "random" events, they have stepped out of the bounds of science and into philosophy. Randomness or chance have no rigorous mathematical or scientific definition. Nor is it possible to design a foolproof test for "randomness" - taking the number pi to umpteen decimal places looks like a "random" sequence without the prior knowledge of where it came from. Thus, claiming life arose out of "random" events is not science.
3. Moreover, from information theory information doesn't just pop out of nowhere. Somehow, some way the information necessary to construct a system as complex as the human brain must have been encoded into the universe. Or, if you like, an earlier version of this argument is the attempt to disprove evolution from thermodynamics and the law of entropy. The evolutionists' correct response is that this only applies in a closed system, but what that means is that the information (or order, if you prefer) must have been elsewhere in the universe. So, eventually the debate is going to have to reduce to debating the origins of the universe (for which evolutionists will have to admit they are on much more shaky ground).
Evolutionism is all about faith...
Horse manure. Following the evidence where it leads for the past 140 years has led to Darwinian evolution being the only valid scientific theory which can account for the evidence. Unfortunately, the ID'ers don't *like* where the evidence has led, and thus they want to kick over the apple-cart and add "fairness" and "equal time" and stuff like that to try to trump the results of the evidence.
B: Scientist's response: Follow the evidence only if it is natural. Otherwise, the foundations of science will be shaken (and that is a bad thing how?).
Horse manure again. This is not the "scientist's response" to the ID twaddle, nor does science explicitly rule out "non-natural evidence" (although beats me what in the hell *that* might be). Science follows the evidence which is available, and looks for ways to acquire more evidence (via experiments, etc.) If you've got more evidence which you think they haven't already taken into consideration, feel free to present it.
Hmmmm. Do I get a star if I pick 'A'?
No, you get a "F" for using the "straw man" and "false dichotomy" fallacies.
Why is this so hard?
Happening, one day, to see a crane wading in quest of food, the good man pointed out to his son the perfect adaptation of the crane to get his living in that manner.
"See," said he, "how his legs are formed for wading! What a long slender bill he has! Observe how nicely he folds his feet when putting them in or drawing them out of the water! He does not cause the slightest ripple. He is thus enabled to approach the fish without giving them any notice of his arrival."
"My son," said he, "it is impossible to look at that bird without recognizing the design, as well as the goodness of God, in thus providing the means of subsistence."
"Yes," replied the boy, "I think I see the goodness of God, at least so far as the crane is concerned; but after all, father, don't you think the arrangement a little tough on the fish?"
-R.G. Ingersoll
Yay! Lets bring back astrology and teach that, too! That's just as scientific as ID! ID still isn't science. It still doesn't have a research program, and still doesn't have any testable theories.
Intelligent design is not SCIENCE. So it should not be taught in a SCIENCE class.
Whether or not evolution is a valid scientific theory is disputed by a proportionally very small number of scientists. Fine, spend a little time in SCIENCE class covering their points, but not a disproportionate amount of time.
Trying to redefine what SCIENCE is by legislating it is ridiculous.
Is there any other kind?