Disputing evolution is saying that every scientists in the life sciences is wrong. Scientists from disciplines from genomics to paleontology rely heavily on evolution and support it 100%.
If you want ID taught in schools, fine. But under no circumstances may it be taught in science class, since scientists unanimously agree it is NOT science. Hence, the ACLU is spot on in this case.
ID must be taught in mythology or religion class where it belongs.
Agree completely.
"But under no circumstances may it be taught in science class, since scientists unanimously agree it is NOT science."
That is a falsehood. I know many scientists that would disagree with you. So, you cannot say "unanimously."
Because you think ID is equivalent to a myth does not make it so. If one does not want to call ID a "scientific" theory then they should at least have the sense to realize it is an alternative explanation. You evoluntionary proponents are just like religious zealots when it comes to propping up your current paridigm. If evolutionary theory cannot stand a little competetion from something as inocuous and vague a ID, then it must not be so great a theory.
Isn't it awfully jingoistic to think that man is the only intelligence that can manipulate nature to suit his own needs?
This simply is not true. Lots of scientists in ALL displines do not support evolution and since the advent of DNA more are doubting. There is no proof for evolution and lots of proof against it. The main evoluionary scientists are liberals and bury their head in the sand, fake evidence and generally try to hide any evidence that doesn't support evolution. The reason evolutionists are afraid of ID is because the fakes, the phony evidence the evidence against evolution will be taugth, they are not taught now. Evolution isn't taught, it is indoctrinated into our children. If ID isn't anything to worry about then why not let it be taught? If it is taught side by side with evoluion THEORY and this theory is correct then most children will see the truth, right? so what is wrong with teaching it? Nothing except it exposes a lot of the lies about evolution. Now I know you think I am a creationists, this is not so. I am not religious, although I went to church when I was a child I haven't been since I was 12. I don't pray and I am not sure I believe in God, but I do know this. When you look at the evidence, and keep an open mind, evolution doesn't stand up. Cambrian layer for one, eyes, wings, not just bird wings but insect wings as well.Feathers, no explaination. No transitional species in the fosil record. No proof at all that life started here with spontaneous generation, no experiment has ever produced even a single cell using the so called primordial soup. It has been proven a mathmatical impossibility for life to have started out of non life. No proof and not all scientists agree with evolution. enough said.
...since scientists unanimously agree it is NOT science.
I suppose you wouldn't want to admit to overstating your case just a little, would you? Really, 'every scientist in the life sciences', 'support it 100%', 'unanimously agree'? Dig deeper on that one my friend and you will find lots of scientists support ID - even though the evolutionists have had a strangle hold on the universities for so long that it has been virtually impossible for anyone with a contrary view to advance. But understand that there are lots of scientists that believe in ID. Every hear of Dr Gary Parker? Ever read Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson?
Understand too that what has raised the heckles and upped the ante has been the tendency of the evolutionists to refer to their teaching as 'the fact of evolution', not 'the theory of evolution'. However, be that as it may, both evolution and intelligent design have to be accepted on faith as no one can go back thousands, millions or billions of years to see what went on way back then. Here's what I would like - I want to hear the case for why it is necessary to teach either in the schools. Can't science be taught without ever needing to address the issue of 'origins' at least for public and high schools? What really has it got to do with the understanding of the object of the scientific study? Do you think an optometrist is a better or worse optometrist if he/she is trained in and believes in evolution or ID - or doesn't give a gnat's whisker for either? Here's how it works, here's how it relates to the rest of the body, the biology of it, diseases, differences from one eye to the next etc etc - where did it come from? Oh, that's a mystery and we don't need to go there to understand the eye. To follow this example through farther, can you name one solitary benefit that the teaching of evolution brings to the table as far as the advancement of eye care for the general public?
Ban both evolutionary and creation teaching from the public classroom. As a matter of fact, ban public education.
Since ID has not been taught for many, many years in public schools but evolution has been taught over and over inserted into almost every subject is it no wonder that ID is not understood or believed by many scientist today. If we kept teaching with certainty that the world was flat and the idea that the world was round and any and all supporting evidence was banished from all learning institutes we would not get very far but remain in darkness. It is very important for many to deny the existence of God. The belief in evolution must be protected to deny the existence of God and the restraints of God upon one's life and upon one's ego that fancies him/herself to be their own God and proudly refuses to bow down to the one and only living God. Also macro-evolutionary belief must remain the only belief system allowed as to keep grant money coming in for many, many unnecessary studies that keep university money and individual pay checks coming in. Above all else it must be avoided at all cost ever having to admit that oneself and one's illustrious educational institute was so foolishly and vehemently wrong.
Philosophy class would be the ideal place to discuss theories of Intelligent Design. If we still taught philosophy...
"ID must be taught in mythology or religion class where it belongs."
Yep. Mythology is my choice here.
Please cite your source that 100% of the scientists support evolution.
Why not teach evolution -- as in randomness is responsible for life and all bio-diversity -- in a mythology or religion class?
"Scientists from disciplines from genomics to paleontology rely heavily on evolution and support it 100%."
So just because "scientists" (and where did you get the "100%" figure?) support it, does that necessarily make it true?
Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say "overwhelming consensus" or "decent (skilled) scientists."
Please recall Pons & Fleischman. Dead wrong, but still scientists... ;-)
Full Disclosure: Yes, I'm yanking your chain. It'd be more instructive to either define science and the scientific method, and show how ID doens't fit the definition, or use some of the failed predictions of ID to demonstrate how one validates ideas--and then compare and contrast to successful predictions elsewhere.
If evolutionists act in a dogmatic fashion, then it is no wonder they elicit dogmatic resistance...
Don't inadvertently abaondon empiricism, even in the short term, due to a lack of patience.
Cheers!
"Disputing evolution is saying that every scientists in the life sciences is wrong. Scientists from disciplines from genomics to paleontology rely heavily on evolution and support it 100%."
I say go ahead and purge all public schools of all remnants of "creationism," intelligent design, etc. But don't do it until you give me a voucher to send my child to a school of my choice. Don't foist your close-mindedness on me and my children by forcing me to pay for your public schools.
And don't browbeat me with your so-called "science" that does not tolerate any dissenting views. Just because you are convinced that you are right about evolution, that does not give you the right to force your views on me through the power of the state.
You don't know nearly as much as you think you know. And no, not "every" scientist in the life sciences buys the purely naturalistic view of evolution, despite your arrogant and delusional claim. Many of them even go the church.
Disputing evolution is saying that every scientists in the life sciences is wrong. Scientists from disciplines from genomics to paleontology rely heavily on evolution and support it 100%.
If you want ID taught in schools, fine. But under no circumstances may it be taught in science class, since scientists unanimously agree it is NOT science. Hence, the ACLU is spot on in this case.
ID must be taught in mythology or religion class where it belongs.
AND, as it typically true of the RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE OF THE CULT OF SCIENCE, virtually all of those highlighted phrases are objectively and provably FALSE, abundantly FALSE.
And you are supposed to be an objective, scientific kind of person. Have all your mirrors shattered?
You are uninformed. To deny the possibility of a Creator is to have a closed mind, something scientists should attempt to avoid. There are excellent books out that illustrate the scientific case for Intelligent Design( That is the title of one). Your bias for one theory over another is unscientific and biased. People are fond of saying that religion persecutes science but nowadays it is the other way around. Anything that goes against the current philosophy of materialism is attacked as "religion". Intelligent Design is the only explaination for the Universe that makes any real sense. How could something come from nothing? Answer that with something other than a theory.