Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action

American Society for Clinical Investigation ^ | 01 May 2006 | Alan D. Attie, Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, etc.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Yes. Interest must be expressed per compounding period.

[Condorman]

Then why do you care whether or not evolution is taught in classrooms? Because evolution is "true?" Why do you care whether truth or falsehood is taught in schools? Why do you care about anything at all?

You have made so many wrong assumptions in a single post it would take several fruitless weeks to delineate and correct them all.

I only wanted to know where the theory of evolution you found a "unique moral obligation to acknowledge [the] creator." You are more intent on grandstanding than actual debate.

Since you are unable to state the theory of evolution, much less explain where it says ANYTHING about a creator, I think it's reasonable to conclude that this whole thing is your own invention, that you have little knowledge of evolution, zero interest in learning anything beyond your own myopic prejudices, and henceforth, you can safely be ignored.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Your version of ID is a bad theory because it fits ALL of the evidence . . .

On the contrary, science will never be able to assess "all" the evidence. ID fits the available evidence better than "natural selection," which is but an arbitrary, post hoc description of history, not a mechanism as you assert. The ubiquitous presence of organized matter performing specific functions ought to make ID axiomatic of science, rather than a notion beyond scientific purview. As it stands, you cannot contest ID scientifically, hence you have only subjective notions behind which to hide your fear of ID. Dot. BINGO!

[andysandmikesmom]

Are you interested in my feelings about Eliza?

[Dimensio]

ID fits the available evidence better than "natural selection," which is but an arbitrary, post hoc description of history, not a mechanism as you assert.

Natural selection is not a "post hoc description". It is a mechanism, and it is one that has been observed. Your ignorance of the nature of natural selection does not change what natural selection is. ID fits "the available evidence" because your definition of ID fits all possible evidence. That is why it is a useless explanation; there is absolutely no possible observation that could contradict it.

The ubiquitous presence of organized matter performing specific functions ought to make ID axiomatic of science, rather than a notion beyond scientific purview.

You have failed to demonstrate that there is reason to believe that "organized matter performing specific functions" can only possibly come about through ID. As such, there is no reason to assume ID as an axiom.

[PatrickHenry]

Are you interested in my feelings about Eliza?

How long have you had [feelings about Eliza?]
</ELIZA creationism version>

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Are you interested in my feelings about Eliza?"

This is not about me, it's about you.

[andysandmikesmom]

Why is this about me?

[andysandmikesmom]

Does it matter how long I have had feelings about Eliza?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Why is this about me?"

Can you elaborate on that?

[andysandmikesmom]

Is elaboration really necessary?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Please go on.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps a nice ratchet annuity?

[andysandmikesmom]

Do you prefer the ratchet annuity?

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is a mechanism, and it is one that has been observed.

Such is your hope and faith.

You have failed to demonstrate that there is reason to believe that "organized matter performing specific functions" can only possibly come about through ID.

So what? Science is not confined to absolute proofs. It consists chiefly of reasonable conjecture. ID is certainly reasonable. As a theory it also fits more observable data than natural selection. Besides, your objections are emotional and philosophical, not scientific. BINGO!

[andysandmikesmom]

You should go on first...

[Dimensio]

Such is your hope and faith.

It is not "hope and faith". Natural selection has been observed. That you deny it does not change reality.

So what? Science is not confined to absolute proofs. It consists chiefly of reasonable conjecture. ID is certainly reasonable.

Why is it reasonable? What reason is there to assume that "organized matter performing specific functions" can only be a result of intelligent design?

As a theory it also fits more observable data than natural selection.

What "observable data"? Note that "organized matter performing specific functions" is not itself "observable data" until you can demonstrate a link between such matter and intelligent design. Thus far I have observed that you do not attempt to establish such a link. You merely assert that the existence of such matter is evidence of ID, but you never actually explain why.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You should go on first..."

Who is on first.