[Filo]

There is nothing scientific about ID so any attempt to paint it that way is a failure from the start.

The assertion that various cited examples are "irreducibly complex" also represents a failure, but in this case a failure to understand.

ID is nothing more than an opinion put forth by those who don't/can't understand evolution or those who refuse to for personal reasons.

I don't mind this being taught in schools, however. There are ample "comparative theology" classes in which it belongs.

[Shalom Israel]

There is nothing scientific about ID so any attempt to paint it that way is a failure from the start.

Note that there's nothing wrong with the definition of "irreducible complexity" per se. The assertion of biologists today is that the collection of irreducibly complex features is empty, and so far they're winning the debate. The example of the bacterial flagellum, for example, has already been answered.

So it is entirely possible for a scientist to look high and low for "irreducible complexity", and yet be perfectly scientific in his endeavor. What makes folks like Behe unscientific is that they ignore evidence when it runs counter to their views.

[mlc9852]

So all scientists agree with Darwin's TOE? I'm quite sure you don't believe that. Why not allow teaching of the "problems" of TOE? Would you be ok with that?

[bvw]

Darwinism saith Dawkins, is the philosopher's stone that allowed Dawkins to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That is like an Arabian saying that Mohammed's Koran is what what allows him to be an intellectually fulfilled muslim. Or even perhaps like we Jews saying that the Torah of Moses it what allows us to be intellectually fulfilled Jews.

Do you call Mohammedism a religion? Do you call Judaism a religion? Do you call atheism a religion?

To teach Darwinism, without bold warning and disclaimer, is religion, as Dawkin's words tell -- it is the teaching of atheism.

[righteousindignation]

that is your opinion and certainly not scientific!