By the same token, Darwin’s theory of evolution speaks only to how species develop and differentiate, NOT how life itself originated. Evolutionary biology is science, pure and simple, with a huge amount of supportive evidence. ID is not falsifiable, cannot be proven definitively, and rests well outside the scientific method. (passing shot: is the creation of new forms of life through genetic manipulation a help or hindrance to ID argument?) Then, again, I don’t hear too many evolutionary biologists arguing that Darwin’s theories encompass the Big Bang theory; cosmology is WAY over there, and biology is WAY over here…

Finally, you do yourself a disservice by using the theory of gravity as a comparison to ID. Newton’s original theories were subject to testing; in fact, they were used to predict the existence of planets and moons before their physical observation. They were also falsifiable; observations that did NOT fit Newton’s theory ultimately exposed its flaws, which were reconciled by Einstein in his work with general relativity. ID simply cannot match the testing, observations, and refinements that the scientific method applied to the theory of gravity.

Evolutionary biology is science. ID is not.

It is also somewhat disconcerting to hear people like yourself who are so sure of your own views and yet you believe that all of the incredible complexity of the universe and life itself just sort of happened. That my little man takes no intelligence, but it does take a lot of FAITH.

But you only want your faith taught in schools right?

This kind of ignorance is dangerous, especially when it leads to trying to use government to push these ignorant religious views on others through public schools. You can’t have both ID and the first amendment, so it’s sad to see so many so-called conservatives tossing out the latter at the first opportunity.

IDers need to either learn science join the John Birchers in the ditch. I for one am done with RedState if this is the kind of insanity that it’ll be pushing.

I was moved to write because of this exchange:

Aaron to nonsequitur:

…now convince your side to stop trying to use evolution to explain the origin of the universe, and we will talk about what else is and is not science.

Then exitsfunnel replied:

Can you provide a link to anyone on his side positing that evolution explains the origins of the universe? Because it’s not clear to me what one has to do with the other and I’ve never heard any evolutionary biologist claim anything to the contrary.

That isn’t an unfair question, given that your comment implied that a tactic used by “his side” was general knowledge and in general use. I wasn’t aware of it myself.

Your response,

Atheistic evolution is dependent on disproving a Creator

buzzwords aside, is an inaccurate statement about evolutionary theory.

Thanks for your explanatory reply to me. I found your previous comments a bit confusing, especially compared to those you were responding to.

You said, “I use philosophy and science to form a prudent reasonable opinion based on what is known, what is unknown, and what is presumed due to records of observation.” I think we more or less all do that, in our own way. I don’t know what else we can do.

There’s still a problem with saying that math/science & faith are mutually exclusive. They’re just not. They must inform. To say they don’t begs the question of which is real, or which is authoritative. Intellectual integrity requires that we be philosophically and scientifically on the same page.

I think science & philosophy MUST be symbiotic, unless everything is random and chaotic. If there is order (science), why (philosophy)?

So we have: God-1 / Monkeys-1.

Clearly that is your language and not mine. As has been stated several times in this thread, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with theological or metaphysical questions. Acceptance of evolution should have no impact on whether or not you believe in God.

For clarification, creation science was also discredited McLean v. Arkansas and by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard.

Not sure how you would score those…

Now can we stop the stupid litigation and get back to science?

I think science teachers would like nothing more. If professional ID advocates would stop trying to force their religious tautology into public school science classes there would be no litigation.

Macro-evolution has some serious flaws in biology as well as in the spin-offs of geology and astrophysics

There are most certainly unanswered questions about speciation and common descent and particularly the role played by RNA and DNA. But just because specific questions have yet to be answered, that does not invalidate the evolutionary framework.

Macro-evolutionary theory is the only current scientific framework that allows us to explain things like atavisms and vestigial traits — most famously human tails and hind limbs found in live wales and dolphins.

Macro-evolutionary theory also allows us to predict the existence of transitional fossils such as Tiktaalik (to give just one example).

The bulk of macro-evolutionary verification has been done on the molecular level in just the last couple decades. Here macro-evolutionary theory allows us to hypothesize (again, just one example) that even though humans and other primates can’t synthesize Vitamin C (which is why sailors get scurvy) but most of the animal kingdom can, that we would still find the gene for synthesizing Vitamin C in humans. In fact that gene was found but was inactive as it was in other primates. This is exactly what we would expect if common descent was valid.

As for problematic “spinoffs” in geology and astrophysics, I’m not sure what you are referring to. Can you clarify?

ID offers an alternate theory,

As I asked above, what theory exactly is that? Other ID advocates like Paul Nelson don’t seem to believe one exists.

(ID) has serious limitations in that it is explanatory but not predictive

Nor verifiable in any way for that matter. ID has all the scientific validity of astrology without the fun predictions about how my day is going to turn out.

ID is a pointed stick that may prod them to do some real science, for a change.

With all due respect, this is difficult to take seriously. Go out an grab a copy of Scientific American or Nature. Scientists working within the evolutionary framework are making very real contributions everyday to our understanding of the world. They deserve better than to have their work baselessly demeaned.

I don’t deny evolution, I question some of the parts, but so should any inquisitive mind…especially scientists. I question the idea of time as a constant. I question the possibility of evolution and the big bang being mechanisms of a Creator. I question the idea of spirituality beyond the human existence.

I use philosophy and science to form a prudent reasonable opinion based on what is known, what is unknown, and what is presumed due to records of observation.

I hope that clears some things up for people.

Not to rehash your earlier thread, but I’m fine with not teaching intelligent design as science. However, since evolutionary theory is also unfalsifiable, it shouldn’t be taught either as more than basic natural selection within kinds. The one can’t be proven any more than the other. There is nothing wrong with saying that we can’t scientifically prove the origin and development of life.

Macro-evolution has some serious flaws in biology as well as in the spin-offs of geology and astrophysics. ID offers an alternate theory, but has serious limitations in that it is explanitory but not predictive. In searching for a better, more explanitory, theory, the current limitation is the dogmatic refusal of the dominent Darwinists to admit that they have a problem. ID is a pointed stick that may prod them to do some real science, for a change.

ID advocates not only couldn’t provide any evidence for the scientific validity of ID, they had to admit that the only way ID could ever be considered scientific is to redefine science itself And ID advocate Michael Behe had to admit on the stand that his definition of science would allow astrology to be considered scientific.

nonsequitur covered the difference between a falsifiable scientific theory and a tautology (which ID always was and was clearly revealed to be in the Dover trial) above.
http://www.redstate.com/realityunwound/2009/05/11/liberals-are-anti-science-reading-between-the-lines-of-intellectual-bullying/#comment-92

Again, this trial was only about what gets taught in public school science classes. I don’t believe it negates in anyway a discussion about larger metaphysical questions which I personally believe all students would benefit from if discussed in a philosophy class or other social science setting.

There’s probably no better example of what a scientific theory is than evolution. Not teaching it handicaps kids in the modern world.

Teaching evolution as dogma also handicaps kids, but unfortunately 80% of the teachers are too lazy or don’t know the difference themselves.

I meant to clearly say that science and religious faith are NOT mutually exclusive and the ‘not’ somehow vanished from my typing.

Apologies for giving the wrong impression.