Replies

The difference is that experments can be desogned and do show the effects of gravity in a predictable manner. Any good theory can predict future behavior given initial conditions. This can be done even by HS physics students in Lab.

Correct.

OTOH Evolutonary Theory is based on interpetion of the fossil record and cannot be used to predict future evolution.

Utterly and completely false.

Also no mechanism is described to explain how the DNA changes other than 'random' mutation.

Again, completely false. Try to learn something about a field before you attempt to critique it.

This is inadequate to describe, the rapid, massive changes seen over relatily short periods of time in the fossil record.

You sort of "forgot" to include your evidence for this assertion, or at least a citation.

And in actual fact, when researchers *have* compared rates of genetic change with the fossil record, they find that the two are in quite good accord.

Please stop posting your wild presumptions as if they were facts.

Most dramatically there is no experement to show how life evolves from inorganic or organic chemicals. At best there are experments that show how some amino acids can be cooked in a lab from inorganic chemicals.

Again, please stop posting your presumptions as if they were fact. There is a vast body of published research on that very topic -- research didn't stop after the 1953 Miller/Urey experiment, as you so ignorantly presume. PubMed has close to 300 published papers on just the RNA World scenario, for example.

But in any case, evolutionary biology is *not* abiogenesis -- they are two different and distinct fields. Try to learn the difference. Evolutionary biology remains valid no matter *what* may or may not be discovered about how/where life originally arose. Similarly, the science of meteorology doesn't depend in the least on how the atmosphere originated.

This part of biology is VERY soft science, it's not like physics or chemistry where there theories grounded in math and experement that can be described and produce predictable results.

Frankly, you really haven't a clue. Your statement is utterly false.

There is work that has described order 'spontaneously' springing from disorder when energy is added to the system. This suggests a very different universe than the dumb random universe.

Not at all, but it may look that way to someone who doesn't know much about science.

Ilya prigogine provided some Hints that lay a foundation the could be used to develop an ID theory.

Fine, get back to us when he has more than "hints".

Stuart Kauffman's stuff about self organization in complex systems is also interesting. He applies his insights to evolution, but this approach could also be used in ID models.

I highly doubt that.

People of Faith can 'believe' in God and his primacy as the creator and Atheist can say God doesn't exist and wasn't neccesary for the universe to exist, neither side can 'prove' scientifically their position.

That's nice, but it's totally irrelevant to the truth of evolution. Evolution is not atheism, and there is a vast amount of evidence supporting evolution.

The current confilict over evolution is politics and not science.

Thank you for admitting that the "ID conflict" is politics by the ID people, and not science.

I am dismayed by the censorship being applied towards ID.

There is no censorship of ID. Try to crank the hysteria level down a few notches.

That is not science. Both sides should be allowed to present their moldels, and supporting arguments.

And they are. Happy now?

Unfortunately, though, "ID" has no models and lousy supporting arguments, so it's getting laughed off the stage as it fully deserves. And that's why it doesn't belong in science class, and isn't gaining acceptance in the scientific community.