[narby]

I believe that the ToE is a compelling explanation of the development of life. However, I don't believe it can be elevated to the status of scientific law

A scientific "theory" is as high as it gets in science. A scientific "law", like Ohm's law, is usually simple formulas, while theories are descriptions of processes that can be quite complex.

If we found exceptions to a scientific law, then it would be broken and discarded. But because theories are more complex, parts of them can be invalidated, or added to, without breaking the entire theory.

When you have to depend on men in robes to enforce your scientific orthodoxy, something is deeply wrong.

Evolution is mostly conducted in the realm of science. The Dover case and a couple of others are the rare exception required to protect the science.

On the other hand, ID is conducted solely in the public square, in politics and the courts. They have conducted zero actual original science on their own, and have yet to even propose tests for things like how ID would be falsified.

Since ID totally depends on "men in robes" and elected officials, something is deeply wrong with it.

[Antoninus]

Evolution is mostly conducted in the realm of science. The Dover case and a couple of others are the rare exception required to protect the science.

That sounds very similar to what various bishops told Gallileo. Science doesn't need "protection" from a guy in a black robe. Let the theory be questioned and let the proponents of the theory defend it without "devolving" into ad hominem invective. The fact that the pro-ToE crowd has been unable to refrain from attacking the motives and the persons of their questioners is the primary factor which makes me think that the ID people may be on to something.

[Antoninus]

Here's one of my major problems with the ToE as it is currently formulated:



How is it that an organism like this can remain almost wholly unchanged for 140 million years? Is it not subject to genetic drift like everything else on the planet?