Replies

Then the natural sciences should admit the possibility that the origin of life and the origin of the species may be beyond their scope.

Perhaps you have some affirmative evidence - i.e., something beyond "you can't disprove it!" - to bring to the table for such a thing?

Take as much time as you like ;)

Consensus cannot be compelled and that is what the promoters of natural evolution are trying to do.

You have the wrong sort of consensus in mind - not consensus among the public, but among professional scientists, where the question of evolution has long been settled. Sorry again, but there it is - creationism is not considered a serious alternative among scientists.

Proper science should not be "I am right now shut up," but rather "let the debate begin."

You're rather late to the party. As much as I hate to say it, that debate has begun, occurred, and ended among scientists. ID brings nothing new at all to the table, and so there's precious little reason to pretend it's a live controversy - among scientists, it isn't, the school boards of the country notwithstanding.

Again we need to make a distinction, this time between micro-evolution (within one species) and macro-evolution (the formation of a new species).

We don't need to do any such thing - that distinction is a wholly artificial construct invented not by scientists and evolutionary biologists, but by creationists who have retreated from the castle walls and into the keep. There is absolutely no dividing line between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" - in fact, those terms are not generally used by professional evolutionary biologists - except for the timeframe involved, and, not to be cynical, in the convenience factor for creationists. When denying the obvious becomes untenable, it is labeled "microevolution", and "nobody denies that". When the supposed immutability of species looks to be in danger, it is labeled "macroevolution" and denied with great vigor.

Part of the problem is that the natural sciences have appropriated to themselves the term scientific.

So basically, you want to join the club called "science", but you don't want to follow the rules set out for members. And who are you?

The natural sciences need to rediscover the humility to say "we do not know."

I see that all the time. In fact, it's by exploring the areas where the answer is currently "I (we) don't know" that glory is gained in science - you can't do that if you don't admit what you don't know, and so there is a very strong disincentive to pretend that everything is known and understood.

This does not mean that they should stop trying to discover natural explanations but that they should not presume that there must be one.

Really, now - there is no presumption that there must be a natural explanation, only that natural explanations are what science concerns itself with. I'm not sure how I can say it any other way, and since this is the third time I've said it, I'm not sure that this is leading anywhere productive.

Create life from inanimate material or create a new species and I will concede that the origin of life and the origin of species comes under purview of the natural sciences. Until then all you can claim is that there is a possible cause for them.

And I thought that we lived in a democracy where the people got to choose what was taught in the schools. Still there is a growing body of scientists who are challenging evolution.

As much as I hate to say it, that debate has begun, occurred, and ended among scientists.

Then they are not true scientists. Among serious scientists the debate about unproven theories is never ended.

There is absolutely no dividing line between "microevolution" and "macroevolution"...

And I thought that you understood the concept of species. For the record: Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups. Thus the important and real distinction between micro and macro-evolution. Of course is makes things easier to pretend that there is no real distinction; easier but dishonest.

So basically, you want to join the club called "science", but you don't want to follow the rules set out for members.

Nor do you seem to have knowledge with the history of science. Historically what we today call science was known as natural philosophy (the terms philosophy and science being use interchangeably) and was recognized as only one branch of science along with moral philosophy, metaphysics and theology. It is only a late development where the natural sciences arrogated to themselves the claim to be the only true science.

I see that [science saying "we do not know"] all the time.

Really, now - there is no presumption that there must be a natural explanation, only that natural explanations are what science concerns itself with.

Then you should have no problem with saying "We do not know IF the origin of life or the origin of species has a natural cause."