Don't go off half-cocked ridiculing the creationist conclusions, but examine the technical explanations that counter the prevailing Evolutionist point of view.
Whether you agree with their conclusions or not, you cannot disagree with their scientific methods that call into question the prevailing Evolutionist interpretation of ALL data scientific.
At that web site, resources can be acquired that explain other phenomena outside of the Evolutionary interpretation.
> Anything that cannot be tested, although it may be a
> pursuit of knowledge, belongs not in science but
> philosophy
Exactly.
But I submit that, even as minerals-to-man Creation cannot be tested or proven, neither can minerals-to-man Evolution.
Nobody was there to see it happen.
Intelligently applied experiments cannot be used to "prove" that "no intelligence was necessary" to drive a process. This is a tautology.
Consider the possibility that someday man will create a completely new life form using completely new genetic information, rather than plagiarizing from the information already extant.
If such a feat were ever accomplished, imagine this announcement to the world.
Finally we see an admission that ID cannot be tested nor proven...thus it is not science. Let us then look at your claim that Evolution also cannot be tested or proven.
If evolution cannot be tested, why is there so many scientific papers devoted into experimental evolution? You want me to cite a few? Here they are, pulling them out of a hat:
McKenzie, J. A., and P. Batterham. 1994. The genetic, molecular and phenotypic consequences of selection for insecticide resistance. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9, 166-169.
Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson, and S. C. Tadler. 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138, 1315-1341.
Elena, S. F., and R. E. Lenski. 2003. Evolution experiments with microorganisms: the dynamics and genetic bases of adaptation. Nature Reviews Genetics 4, 457-469.
I could go on all day here. Never mind that those scientists are the evil spawns of the sacred cow of materialism. The point is, evolution theory has hypothesis that could be tested. And they are being tested every single day, as illustrated by the above papers I mentioned. And if a theory could be tested, it IS proper scientific process (however wrong it might turn out to be).
I took a look at the website you mentioned. And if you want, I could go point by point. But I don't want to fall into the trap of talking too much in too short a space. Let me just limit myself and reiterate what I have been trying to say all along. ID is not a science because we cannot devise an experiment to test the hypothesis. Evolution, however imperfect it is, IS from the simple virtue that it abides by the scientific method.
Let's recap
1. Science is a systematic process of gaining knowledge through the scientific method : observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment.
2. ID has observation and hypothesis. But no prediction and experiment. (If I'm wrong, do be kind and provide examples). Hence it is not science.
3. Evolution theory has all components of the scientific method. Including the testing as the above papers I mentioned illustrate. Hence it is science.
Conclusion? Keep non science stuff out of science classrooms!!!
PS. If you want to think critically, learn to recognize a few logical fallacies. If A is wrong, it does not necessarily mean B is right. If you want to show that ID deserves respect, show evidence by its own merit, not back-riding on what you perceive to be faults on the evolution side. Attacking evolution does not make ID right. On the same note, accepting evolutionary theory does not necessarily make that person hostile towards a 'designer'. There are plenty of theologists who have come to term with evolution.
And another thing
Intelligently applied experiments cannot be used to "prove" that "no intelligence was necessary" to drive a process.
Do understand that we do not actively engage in trying to "prove" no intelligence was necessary. As a matter of fact, we ask no such questions. As I have said before, such matter is outside the scope of science. We do not ask it. We do not endorse it. We do not hate it either.