[gondramB]

There is nothing wrong with ID being taught in school - its only when they teach it in science class as valid science that it threatens the future of the country.

[Prokopton]

There is nothing wrong with ID being taught in school - its only when they teach it in science class as valid science that it threatens the future of the country.


"Taught by senior lecturer Allen MacNeill of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology department"

Doesn't sound like it's a religion class.

[Idisarthur]

Some argue that Evolution, itself, is more philosophy than science.

They say that the Evos believe that life evolved through nondirect, materialistic processes.

But the Non-Evos counter: we need to prove that life came from non-life or abiogenesis. And we need then a change from simple life forms to more complex forms over time.

The Evos say: We could talk about competing models and so forth... so as to have a starting point in this game of life.

The Non-Evos counter:

If we don't know how this game started by naturalistic, evolutionary processes then how do we know that it happened by naturalistic and evolutionary processes?

***********************

I understand that micro-evolution exists but macro evolution is somewhat of a stretch for me at this point. Macro-evo, I don't believe is fact unless abiogenesis is fact. This is not about science, necessarily... it's has much to do with philosophy.

*******************

The point of the IDer's, I think, is to not be pigeonholed by some definition of Science... but rather to consider other truths that exists but can't be pushed into a test tube... or tested empirically.

And I don't think they are saying that we should run around claiming that God did everything.

Btw, at what point does does Anecdotal data become Empirical data?

[tallhappy]

There is nothing wrong with ID being taught in school - its only when they teach it in science class as valid science that it threatens the future of the country.

The sky is falling. What hyperbole.

[johnnyb_61820]

They are giving science credit for the class. If you want to see the professors views on the class, see his blog:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/evolution-and-design-is-there-purpose.html

The professor is also answering questions and having a discussion with the folks at TelicThoughts about the subject:

http://telicthoughts.com/?p=634

[johnnyb_61820]

Also I forgot to mention that their science faculty includes both at least one ID'er and at least one YEC:

http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/sanford/
http://www.mae.cornell.edu/Psiaki/default.html

[Boiler Plate]

its only when they teach it in science class as valid science that it threatens the future of the country.

Really? Do you have any proof?

[JamesP81]

There is nothing wrong with ID being taught in school - its only when they teach it in science class as valid science that it threatens the future of the country.

Yes, some guy thinks God created the universe, ergo, the sky is falling. Good God man, calm down. Just because someone disagrees with evolution doesn't mean the energy-state death of the universe is at hand.

[DennisR]

"...it threatens the future of the country.."

And how - exactly - does it do this?

[Old_Mil]

its only when they teach it in science class as valid science that it threatens the future of the country.

It's most curious that you raise this point. After all, the ID/evolutionary debate is about history, not the future. Ongoing research with any real meaning takes place in labs far removed from this issue. How ID could "threaten the future of the country" is rather mystifying...unless of course the future you envision for the country is one in which a designer is not given any credit for our origins.