[Boiler Plate]

EM2
I agree with you in that science should be left to discerning facts and not speculation. As we both agree we have not been able to figure out what the "Life" mechanism is does not necessitate improbability however as the complexity increases in will tend towards impossibility.

The fundamental assumption of evolution is that it has to be true because there is no other "scientific" way for it to have had happened. This is the assumption that Darwin made and it remains as the basis of most arguments.

This assumption is two edged sword in that eliminates the alternative, but it also limits the search for the truth. Simply put how would science operate if we assumed that there was a God? Would it bring an end to the discovery of truth and fact? I don't think so there are many great scientific minds that seemed to have both advanced science and acknowledged that there is God.

Therefore I think it is essential that all reasonable ideas be taught in science class so as to stimulate open midedness and a desire to discover scientific truth.

These are truly exciting days we live in and I really don't see these crevo debates as much more than socio/politico/philosophical debates. I have good friend who is a patent attorney and he deals a lot with genetic engineering patents. There is some pretty amazing things that will be hitting the street in the months to come that could bring to reality things we only thought possible in science fiction.

Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Dimensio]

The fundamental assumption of evolution is that it has to be true because there is no other "scientific" way for it to have had happened.

This statement is not correct. Evolution is accepted as "true" by many biologists because compelling evidence supports the theory, not because of an abscence of any other scientific explanation.

This is the assumption that Darwin made and it remains as the basis of most arguments.

I would ask that you support this claim that Darwin made this assumption as you allege.

This assumption is two edged sword in that eliminates the alternative, but it also limits the search for the truth. Simply put how would science operate if we assumed that there was a God?

That would depend entirely upon the nature of the "God" being assumed. It is possible that for many definitions of "God", science would be no different. I do not see how this relates to the theory of evolution. I also do not see how this justifies your previous unsubstantiated claim that evolution has a "problem" with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[elfman2]

"I agree with you in that science should be left to discerning facts and not speculation. "

Unfortunately you’re not agreeing with me because that’s not what I said. Speculation from fact is essential to science. It’s inductive reasoning. Couple it with deductive it is the core of the scientific method.

ID is not that at all. It’s antithetical to science’s core. Look at the highlighted Criteria for a Scientific Theory that it does not meet.

Scientific Theory Characteristics

In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,
4. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
5. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Ockham's razor.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; those that meet only several or none at all, cannot be said to be scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.
Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as:
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.").

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."--end quote

"As we both agree we have not been able to figure out what the "Life" mechanism is does not necessitate improbability however as the complexity increases in will tend towards impossibility."

Nothing specific that I’m aware of is called the “Life mechanism”, and there is abundant but incomplete evidence or scientific theory each step of the way.

" The fundamental assumption of evolution is that it has to be true because there is no other "scientific" way for it to have had happened "

On the contrary, that’s the only claim ID has to evidence, and even it is very contentious. If anyone advances a theory that is scientific enough to meet most of the above criteria for a scientific theory, it will be taught in Science class rather than philosophy.

" Simply put how would science operate if we assumed that there was a God? Would it bring an end to the discovery of truth and fact? "

I think those are two excellent question! And I’m sure most people would agree that they are appropriate for a philosophy class.

" I really don't see these crevo debates as much more than socio/politico/philosophical debates. "

Exactly. I think you are inadvertently supporting my position, that there’s a place in education for exploring and criticizing evolution. That’s in science class. But the place for exploring and criticizing ID or science's dependence on God are “socio/politico/philosophical” classes.

Best Regards,
Bill