If you really want ID in the science classroom, what you will get is religion being subjected to the methods of science.
Everything is science is up for grabs. If you can't see it or devise a test for it, it goes.
Is this what you want for religious beliefs, testing by the standards of methodological materialism?
The List-O-Links. Introductory info about the evolution issues.
How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you really want ID in the science classroom, what you will get is religion being subjected to the methods of science.
***Nothing wrong with that. I found a ton of useful information when I realized there were a lot of archaeological discoveries that related to 1st century Palestine and what happened there. Besides, I don't care much about religion.
Everything is science is up for grabs. If you can't see it or devise a test for it, it goes.
***Great. Once we start coming up with scientific tests for the assertions of the haps side of evo/abio, then I noticed that science kinda moved on from that pursuit, coming up with alternative theories of external abiogenesis from comets because the probabilities of abiogenesis origins seemed too small.
Is this what you want for religious beliefs, testing by the standards of methodological materialism?
***I dunno. Those are kinda high falutin' terms you just put together, and I don't know what yer askin'. What's so wrong with testing religious beliefs? Do earthquakes get caused by elephants jumping up & down like the baghavad gita says? The problem I have is with the haps side of evo/abio creeping into every other philosophy on campus in such a manner that even english teachers use it as a backdrop for their soulless philosophies. We should empower students to be able to say, "shut up and teach" english or women's studies or humanities or whatever. Origins belongs in an origins class. If someone happens to hold a different viewpoint than the prevailing scientific priesthood, it shouldn't matter.
"Everything is science is up for grabs. If you can't see it or devise a test for it, it goes." ~ js1138
Some scientists say that ID is not science-based but is purely a matter of faith.
ID advocates argue that design inference is testable: It could be refuted if someone could empirically demonstrate that unguided natural processes could produce irreducible complexity.
"Behe contends that irreducibly complex features are better explained by design because our knowledge and reason tell us that such features can only be produced by intelligent causes -- putting the lie, by the way, to the claim that ID is just one competing theory. Thus, ID advocates argue that design inference is testable: It could be refuted if someone could empirically demonstrate that unguided natural processes could produce irreducible complexity."
Excerpted from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1469807/posts