[RadioAstronomer]

Evolution is not like, say, the "theory of gravity," which can be expressed in relatively simple mathematical formulas and which can accurately PREDICT future events.

I disagree. The theory of gravity is no more "correct" than the theory of evolution.

ID and creationism are not science and should not be tought as such, no matter how you try to repackage it.

[r9etb]

ID and creationism are not science and should not be tought as such, no matter how you try to repackage it.

Just a question though: suppose for the sake of argument that ID and/or some creation agent played at least some part in the actual development of life.

Would they be science then? And would any science that a priori excluded them be good science?

[BeAllYouCanBe]

>>I disagree. The theory of gravity is no more "correct" than the theory of evolution.<<

I would guess that in order for you to test the theory of gravity you could setup experiments and examine your results. You could come closer with gravity to a proof of the theory than evolution.

With evolution there isn't a possible way to have conclusive results because of the nature of the theory.

[Publius6961]

I disagree. The theory of gravity is no more "correct" than the theory of evolution.
I disagree. Even a jr high school student can verify and confirm the science behind gravity.
No one is yet able to verify and confirm the "evolution science" behind the development of man from primordial slime to complex biological organism.

ID and creationism are not science and should not be tought as such, no matter how you try to repackage it.
A personal opinion not universally shared.
In addition, "evolution", as presently presented and understood, also fails the most elementary tests of what "science" is: Consistent results, independent repeatability, and no gaps requiring leaps of faith.

[Mark Felton]

It is bad science to a priori rule out the possibility of ID.

It would be like examining fossilized dinosaur poop and ruling out the possibility it was created by a dinosaur. (if you had never before conceived of a dinosaur)

You do not know what you do not know.

Until you can prove that ID is impossible then you must leave it as a possibility, no matter how remote. Otherwise you are simply applying your own anti-ID faith into the science.

[DesertSapper]

No, creationism is not science by definition because we cannot "observe" what happened. But neither can we "observe" macro-evolution. Evolutionary scientists claim to see a link between species yet the fossil record doesn't show these "trans-species" and paleontologist/archeologists base much of their dating on geological strata age assumptions but ignore anything that crosses multiple stata. These are HUGE holes in this theory yet because they are adament about not allowing for a "higher power" being involved, they have to ignore them. True science doesn't ignore contradictory evidence, it tries to study it and formulate new assumptions. Darwinists gave up on science long ago.

What if I say I DO know that God created humans? I have an historical document that says so (as do all the major religions) and current science that CANNOT disprove it.

How is it preferrable to say "we have no clue what really happened to start everything but if we ignore all the holes in our scientific processes, we can produce a theory that may explain some of this"?

[PatrickHenry]

This same article, same author, with a different title, was posted earlier:
Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it? [Evolution vs. ID-Creationism].

[cvq3842]

I didn't say ID or creationism were science. I do think that the fossil record is not complete and questions remain about evolution. (Maybe gravity too!)

As I said before, I would like all questions to be on the table without preconcieved notions. And again, I personally never saw religion as addressing this in the same way science does. I know others disagree.

Thanks for responding and allowing me to clarify.

[RobRoy]

A sharp rock isn't science either. You can still cut yourself with it.

ID could be science. How do you know it is not verifiable unless you scientifically analyze it?