Why should ID be taught in science classes...

Hi EpicThought! No Nebraska man didn't come into it but Piltdown man did. They wanted to present it as evidence for evolution but the trial was not about whether evolution was true -it was about whether it was legal to teach it.Ultimately nobody got a chance to show off their icon -and it was a good thing as it was shown to be a fraud 40 years after it made its initial appearance.Fooled lots of people in those 40 years though! And well you shouldn't -since nobody alive was there when it all began - any stories of origins are made up stories (except of course the Bible if it is true but that's another thread.)
I agree - teach evolution and ID (only the scientific evidence supporting each.)

I have no idea -I only heard that the discoverer of Piltdown man didn't like showing the original so only casts were allowed to be seen by other scientists.That's quite often the case apparently.
The point is from the creationist side is that without that world view you're not as likely to put those bones together and see !a missing link! -ok the flipside is if there ever was a real one, creationists would be unlikely to find it but at least we won't be making men out of monkeys anytime soon.Again I am not implying scientific dishonesty working here (though someone perpetrated the fraud for some purpose -maybe to get people to believe in evolution??), it is interpretation by different worldviews. The same old, 'no facts speak for themself, they have to be interpreted according to some view of the world'.There are only two main ways of looking at it -creation or evolution -even given different religions -it still boils down to these two.
Evolutionists tend to deny the fact that they interpret according to their worldview, creationists explain that the controversy exists precisely because of the underlying assumptions that each group has. I don't know of any -when? Or else what evolutionists have decided are hoaxes are only considered to be that from the position of their worldview and creationists don't accept their explanations perhaps.I don't believe they would keep anything that was genuinely proven to be wrong -that would not help their case in the least.I'd like some examples of their hoaxes to look into for interests sake.Science works -evolution in general doesn't.Only one small portion of the overall picture called evolution works and that is the variation and natural selection within a range part -no other part is provable. Creation science accepts that part as a reality of life; it is the only part of 'evolution' that can be called science. I would think that they keep it alive in order to demonstrate the interpretation angle of how science works and for no other reason.Thanks for the link -I will get there asap.Well that link got me nowhere. Thanks again. Edited by Beretta, : Further comment

The only point there is what is the possibility that bananas were created for us to eat? Random mutation or purpose? Forget the modern banana and the original banana -they're all still bananas -perhaps with a little loss of information from the original -but noways is it going anywhere. Certainly there's no proof that it came from anywhere but the original created banana.How did it come to be? What was it before it was a banana?Variation and natural selection only work on whatever is already there -created, you know. How did it come to be in the first place and is it so beyond the evolutionist's worldview to accept that maybe it didn't mutate from something else?Where's the hoax -do you have anymore? Edited by Beretta, : No reason given.

Hi Purpledawn,
I'd love to get to this link -'the supernatural science whatever' but two people have given it to me in their posts and it doesn't get me anywhere when I click on it.Try it, it doesn't work!

Well that's news to me that its been refuted -but perhaps that's like the specified complexity argument or the irreducible complexity argument. Evolutionists deny its importance but to ID proponents evolutionists deny in vain and we don't understand how come you don't seem to understand the argument.Can you explain the refutation or give me a link? Does this mean that we know what preceded the banana in the evolution process or why bananas remain bananas for so long while apes (that really seem to be managing well) progressed so rapidly to humans? Is there proof for what is contended re: banans or is it the fossils and the belief in the geological time scale and the assumption of uniformatarianism that is being held up as pure science? Making use of supernatural explanations for origins doesn't change anything since the fact of natural selection and variation are what is used in science.Please tell me what you disagree with in that statement.
God may have dun it but scientific progress carries on - we are not going to perform experimentation via the miraculous, we are going to carry on working with natural laws and how can that possibly threaten science or scientists for that matter? Yes and being informed of the contentions of ID proponents appropo life on earth is not going to change the scientific method -in fact knowing the difference between historical and experimentally verifiable science is going to help students to think critically about how to think and what makes people believe the way they do and how science can be misled when it uses its assumptions to determine reality.
NOTHING BAD is going to happen!!We are not going to get stupider if we allow for godidit instead of 'nothing' did it.
Everything THAT HAS A BEGINNING has a cause. God is eternal so he needs no cause.(but that's another argument.) I wonder if what is above answers your question.How do you think ID kills science -exactly???

Which contained all the genetic material found in a modern banana -nothing added; some information lost perhaps, but not added.Natural selection or human selection selects -it does not create.

So? Those precursors are needed for the secretory system -at what point did they stop secreting and get in line to motor and gradually get organized into a flagellum. Isn't there still a secretory function ongoing in the bacterium? You have to be an evolutionist to imagine the natural selection pathway that kept a non-functional part way flagellum going while it organized itself into something that worked. Did the bacteria decide that it needed to go somewhere? Did its inner working parts randomly mutate according to its desire to head out there? If my ancestors and I all really felt that flying would be a useful function, would our random generational mutations eventually make that happen. And when our wings were just getting started, of what value would they be? Is natural selection likely to select them if they are halfway there and have no purpose yet.'Scientific' refutations are not always logical but they do appeal to those who would push for evolution as the only possibility. Whats superstitious about it??? I call it scientific reasoning based on facts and logic.

What might plantains have been created for?

So are you saying that mutation creates? As far as I know, mutation is like spelling mistakes in the genetic code. They are the sort of thing that happens when you expose yourself to an overdose of x-rays.
Evolutionists imagine that it has some sort of creative power because 'we're here aren't we.'
Besides, mutation must create because there's nothing else left to explain it.

It's only ever been proven that mutations subtract or distort information or are neutral in effect. It is however imagined that they must also add information somewhere along the line 'because we're here, aren't we?' However squirrels and fish have helpful characteristics that may have developed by chance or may have been created for that specific species.Skin being used for gliding isn't quite like turning scales into feathers. What kind of proof do we have that reptile's scales turned into feathers? None and it makes sense -a reptile only has information for scales and a bird has genetic information for feathers. This information for each is even on different parts of the genome so the one could not have developed into the other.Birds appear suddenly and fully-formed in the geologic record as do reptiles. Only a belief in evolution allows anything else to be imagined.In the words of Stephen Jay Goulddespite being an evolutionist)
"The history of most fossil species includes two feature particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1)Stasis -most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (The Panda's Thumb) In short, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.It's things like this that convince me that ID should be taught in science classes -otherwise the false impression is given that the evidence lines up absolutely with the conclusions when in fact the opposite is generally true. Perhaps it is the evolution religion that succumbs to superstition and desire?Edited by Beretta, : No reason given.

Mutations are mistakes made during the transfer of information from one generation to the next.(like birth defects)Evolutionists postulate that if these mistakes are beneficial to the animal, it will give the mutated animal an advantage and natural selection will then preserve that advantage.
It seems logical enough but does it line up with reality?
Years and years of experimentation has shown that mutation cannot develop new organisms or even cause useful changes to existing organisms because mutations never add useful information.
They are analogous to misspellings in a book.
Even examples of 'beneficial mutations' such as sickle cell anaemia (causing resistance to malaria)do not create new features or improve overall survivability.
Belief that mutations could slowly change an animal into some other animal is analogous to believing that a black and white TV could be changed into a color one by throwing random parts at it. The impacts will definately produce change but will the changes be beneficial?
Read 'Principles of Genetics' -EJ Gardner or 'Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome' -Dr JC Sanford (highly recommended)-and lest I be suspended once again, let me get back on topic.
We should teach the children the truth about what we actually know about mutations not what we imagine must have happened.Science as opposed to philosphical musings.
"So class, we have no evidence of anything beneficial occurring due to random undirected mutations but we BELIEVE that evolution happened and we hope that in the future we may obtain the necessary evidence to suggest that we may be right after all. In the meantime lets return to the actual provable science.
Yes, 'faith moves mountains but only knowledge moves them to the right place'.

See reply to Ringo -message 58

Well I would surmise that they did work at some stage or they wouldn't be there at all. Loss of information through mutation causing genetic blindness in some, while others are unaffected? Interesting question, I'll look into it.

Fact:
Humans have 1000 times more DNA than bacteria -yet salamanders, which are amphibians, have 20 times more DNA than humans. Humans have 30 times more DNA than some insects, but less than half of that of certain other insects.
Question:
"And so children given the above and given that evolution says bacteria evolved successively into fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and man -give us your ideas on probable scenarios that would throw our expected scenario so out of kilter and what plausible story we could hypothesise to overcome this difficulty..."

I have actually presented some evidence that points to creation as more probable than evolution. Unfortunately maintaining that evidence against evolution is not evidence for creation does not hold up to closer examination. For instance, the genetic information example makes evolution look far less plausible than creation or some sort of ID proposition. There are lots of examples where evidence against evolution makes creation look more feasible if you look at the details of what is actually scientifically known. Both can be deciphered -but hereditary change cannot necessarily be scientifically extrapolated to include all that is implied by the term 'evolution'.
To demonstrate the logical incoherency and circularity of Darwinist thinking:"The prevailing assumption in evolutionary science seems to be that speculative possibilities, without experimental confirmation, are all that is really necessary.The principle at work is the same one that Waddington, Medawar and Mayr invoked when challenged by the mathematicians. Nature must have provided whatever evolution had to have, because otherwise evolution wouldn't have happened.It follows that if evolution required macromutations then macromutations must be possible, or if macromutations are impossible, then evolution
must not have required them. The theory itself provides whatever supporting evidence is essential." (Johnson -'Darwin on Trial') It appears that the designer put all the necessary information for variation and survival of different kinds of animals from the beginning. They vary according to environmental necessity or selective breeding. For example, breeding of different kinds of dogs show many different varieties are possible through selective breeding but there is no evidence that anything but some kind of dog is possible.Through selective breeding, information is lost so you'll never get a big dog out of a chihuaha once the info for long legs is bred out but if you want long legs again, cross the chihuaha with a long legged dog and put that genetic feature back.
Same with humans -different amounts of melanin for skin color in isolated populations and different inherited features but all human and they won't ever be anything but human.Breeders pursuing conscious goals, intelligently guide their process and even then, the potential for variability runs out and the process reaches its natural limit. Just as SETI surveys radio emissions of stars looking for codelike sequences that would indicate intelligent origin, so scientists should have the academic freedom to be able to look at DNA and other info-rich systems in nature and consider the possibility of an intelligent causation.Neither evolution nor creation can be proven by scientific experiment but there are just some facts that make one explanation appear more likely than another.