And is thus intellectually dishonest. The controversy exist only in the minds of the ID proponents. They are using the school board and courts rather than trying to honestly get their ideas examined; perhaps that's because when people do look at the ID's publications, the ID claims just don't stand up.
The controversy, to the extent there is one, is so esoteric that no one supporting ID on FR has ever managed to explain what difference it would make to biological research.
Alamo: you recently suggested to me that you believe in something like Lamarkian evolution. Any bias towards non-random mutation would be easily observable in controlled experiments. I'm curious why ID proponents haven't suggested such experiments, or if they have, none have been described on these threads.
you: And is thus intellectually dishonest. The controversy exist only in the minds of the ID proponents. They are using the school board and courts rather than trying to honestly get their ideas examined; perhaps that's because when people do look at the ID's publications, the ID claims just don't stand up.
If the controvery were obviously bogus - like a claim that schools ought to teach geocentricity - it both could have and would have been 'put to bed' long ago.
Also, the ID claims are being examined though not by biologists or chemists but rather by the mathematicians and physists who have been brought to the table. The difference is the mathematicians and physicists don't question evolution per se but the result is the same.
The ID proponents likewise don't reject evolution altogether either, but their direct challenge to evolution theory as being incomplete or inaccurate doesn't sit well with many.
Either way, the rise of complexity in biological life, semiosis, autonomy, successful communications will be addressed.