Intelligent Design has no Place in the Classroom of Science

It fails to explain anything, predict anything, or well...do anything. Creationism is a position not a science.Creaion science is the attempt to shoehorn observations into a story that is not inconsistent with the Biblical genesis story. It might be, but creation science has a tendency to explain anomalies in their work as 'miracles' or some other divine act. Every bit of science that has come out of creation science has been badly flawed or outright falsified.ID is a slightly different issue. The statement by Bullock misses an important issue: 'Darwinism' does not claim apparent design, but actual design. Its the intelligent part that has problems. Until ID can tell us how this Designer builds its product, there is no science to do, just philosophy.

You say this like theory and science are somehow different things. Manipulating a few creatures in a lab does not prove how creatures evolved over millions of years. Several independent lines of evidence are consistent with the explanation. That's science.

When did he say that? 1929 you say. When the discoverer of DNA was only 1 years old? Might there be a lot more evidence now? This is quote mining from the master of quote mining!Here is what he actually said:

quote:

---

The only great generalization which has so far come from zoological studies is that of evolution . .

​

Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of palæontology, and geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible.

​

Whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable .

​

The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

​

The alternative explanations which are put forward of the existence of the differences which separate species from species or one geographical race from another are in essence three.

​

Thus the present [1929!!!!] position of zoology is unsatisfactory. We know as surely as we shall that evolution has occurred ; but we do not know how this evolution has been brought about. The data which we have accumulated are inadequate, not in quantity but in their character, to allow us to determine which, if any, of the proposed explanations is a vera causa. But it appears that the experimental method rightly used will in the end give us, if not the solution of our problem, at least the power of analysing it and isolating the various factors which enter into it.

---

SourceScience has changed, Watson was clearly complaining about the current state of affairs, nearly 80 years ago, decades before DNA was discovered, and only a few decades after Darwin first proposed natural selection and Gemmules.And he was right in way. In 1929 Darwinism with a few knobs on was the accepted theory. Darwinism was lacking in a lot of hard science in those days, and Watson was standing up and saying it. The modern sythesis came about 8 years later, starting with Dobzhansky's use of chromosome theory and mathematics. It wasn't until 1942 that the modern synthesis was given a name to differentiate from the Victorian evolution science. Echoing the sentiments of many scientists, and many posters here. Do you have any evidence that most evolutionists think like this? Not many on this board think this way. Naturally a creationist would say this. Conflating abiogenesis and evolution is common.This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 07-February-2006 11:10 PM

Drifing so far off topic as can be possible. It is reasonable, if the rationale is made clear. Normally though it is equivocation, and abiogenesis could be replaced by theogenesis and evolution wouldn't be affected, so it is misleading to conflate them in order to demonstrate all principles involved are problematic, when it is only one principle you are arguing.Feel free to start or add this into a different topic where we can discuss it at more length if you so choose.

Well, assuming you haven't had kids, your genes would be removed the pool. If the incident is unrelated to genes, then its not likely to have any major effect. However, if it had genetic cause (predisposition to bad planning, recklessnsess, balance problems, perception issues) then it might happen to others with those same genes so the frequency of those problems would reduce. Of course, if the same genes give you a genetic tendency to have lots of babies, that might off set the problem.The real issue is that road deaths are not a significant selection mechanism. Its hardly the root cause of anywhere maintaining its current breeding population size. I'm not sure of that. Humans might not be capable of thinking in certain ways for example. However, you are basically defining accident as being an unpredictable event, and I don't that's valid. Accidents are unintended events. Indeed - evolution doesn't necessarily choose the best solution. The point isn't the advantage in a radio, its that nobody designed the radio, it was designed by a process. How is a conclusion being rammed in here? Discovering that an evolutionary process can design novel and unexpected solutions to problems is ramming a conclusion? I don't see it. I'm confused. The radio was an accident? If we continue testing and we find millions of these accidents that discounts that these accidents could happen? Whose to say in that case then that the diversity of life as we see it isn't an accident as you define it?This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 12-February-2006 01:28 AM

Except in the minds of the designers of the experiment. Thus, the process designed the radio, not the experimenters. This isn't a theory, its an experiment, so falsification isn't really an issue. The experiment demonstrates that a process can design an object, and that intelligence isn't required. Its doubly powerful because the experiment wasn't set up to design a radio.If you are saying that infinite accidents are possible, whose to say that life as we see it isn't one of those accidents? The theory can be falsified in an absolute array of ways. This experiment cannot really falisify evolution though, so its erroneous to say that ToE cannot be falsified because this experiment can't falsify it. All this experiment does is demonstrate that a process can design things, even when the experimenters were not intending for the process to design said things.Do you accept that the process these experimenters employed managed to design something? Do you accept that the thing designed wasn't the 'target' of the process? Do you accept that the process used is evolutionary in its nature?

What's the name of the school, I'm interested to see what they are doing, and I'd love to see their curriculum!

The process isn't design, but the process can design. A process can design something. We have shown you evidence of this happening. I can show you more if you want. Not necessarily. There are processes that exist that we have no evidence were designed by anybody. I'm sure you've heard of the water cycle, the birth and death of stars etc.Also, a process can be designed that designs some other thing. We have shown the evidence, would you like more?

an unintelligent process has designed a radioParasomnium does a good job of discussing it here. Once you've had a look there we can discuss other examples if you'd like.