Intelligent Design has no Place in the Classroom of Science

Why is creationism not science? I agree, it's not strictly science, but niether is evolution. After all, evoltion is not observeable and therefor would have to qualify as something other science too...

quote:

---

After all, evoltion is not observeable and therefor would have to qualify as something other science too...

---

two problems here...1) Evolution has most definitely been observed to occur both in the lab and in the field, so you are wrong there.2) A phenomena does not have to be directly observable to be scientific. Inferences are made from the evidence all the time. In fact, pretty much all of science is inferred.Not a single person has ever directly observed an electron. We have only inferred their existence by very indirect experimental means.Does this mean that The Atomic Theory of Matter isn't science?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-27-2006 09:29 PM

Evolution has not been observed. Change in frequency of alleles in populations has been observed, but not evolution (beyond microevolution of course).This message has been edited by Faith, 01-27-2006 09:40 PM

quote:

---

Evolution has not been observed. Change in frequency of alleles in populations has been observed, but not evolution (beyond microevolution of course).

---

"Evolutution" and "change in alelle frequencies in populations over time" are exactly the same thing, Faith.Regarding "micro" evolution, there is absolutely no difference in mechanism between "micro" and "macro" evolution.If you believe there is some barrier that prevents the accumulation of many small changes in a population such that it is impossible that the 100,000th generation, given selection pressures, will be very different from the population it arose from, perhaps you can start a new thread to explain it.You might earn a Nobel Prize if you can document it.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-27-2006 09:59 PMThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-27-2006 10:00 PM

but still, why is creationism not science? and when was evolution obserened in the field and lab?

This is not in line with the topic of this thread. Please take it to somewhere more appropriate

There are massive differnces. Microevolution is the adaptation within a certian specices, the animal's DNA isn't affected, no matter how much microevolution takes place the creature will never turn into an different animal. Macroevoluion deals with a specices' DNA changing over time and possibly turnig it into a different species altogether.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 01-27-2006 11:29 PM

This is not in line with the topic of this thread. Please take it to somewhere more appropriate

All evolution is changes in a population's DNA over time. Even adaptation reflects changes in a population's DNA over time. Organisms are adapted because they have certain physical characteristics; DNA determines those characteristics. Thus if a population of organisms are changing their physical characteristics to adapt, we know that their DNA is changing as well.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 01-27-2006 11:30 PM

Because science is a process where we generate testable explanations that help us understand how something works.Saying "God did it by magic" doesn't explain how anything works. An explanation for how your TV works, for instance, has to include radio waves and electron beams if it's going to be any help to you in fixing your TV when it breaks, or in making new TV's, or in designing better ones. An explanation that "they're made in the TV factory by magic" or "they grow on TV trees" is a useless explanation, because it doesn't give you any way to find out more about what happens.Scientific theories should promote more inquiry, not stop it in its tracks. But that's what creationism does. It answers the question "where did all these different living things come from?" with "God did it by magic", which doesn't give you anything else to go on. You try to ask "what kind of magic?" and all you get is "the magic kind." My wife does this every day in the lab. I do it every day in the greenhouse and the field. (Well, not ever day. On the weekends we play World of Warcraft.)

I suggest Crash, you open or start up again a micro macro topic.This is too big and too far from the ID in the classroom that is the subject here.

The deterministic mechanism by which life somehow evolved from a life spark to single cell life to organ life to multiple organs/body life, and then finally spread to the evolution of millions of creatures has not been proven by scientific methods.While it's very true that ID is not science, evolution as defined above is not science either; and therefore should not be taught in classrooms as science.All ID proponents have ever asked for is that ID be presented as a plausible explanation for how creatures came to be, if the theory of evolution is to be taught. If this cannot or will not be done, then the theory of evolution should be taken out of the science classroom.It's as simple and as difficult as that!This message has been edited by John 10:10, 02-02-2006 03:55 PM

---

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

I guess that's true, sure. Of course, the one problem is that this bears absolutely no relation to the scientific theory of evolution as taught in classrooms.(Seriously, "organ life"? WTF?)

The "life spark" concept should be pursued in one of the Origin of Life forum topics.The "spread to the evolution of millions of creatures" concept should be pursued in one of the Biological Evolution topics.Biological evolution only presumes that life on Earth somehow started - The "life spark" may or may not have been the work of God.Please take any replies to this message to the "General..." topic, link below.Adminnemooseus

---

On the contrary. Evolution IS testable. Evolution makes predictions. Evolution has evidence. While a lot of the evidence is forensic evidence, it makes predictions about what will be found, and it also can make repeatble predictions in the lab.

Yes, I'm new to the forum, and will learn how to respond within the confines of each post discussion.I said what I said to explain if ID has no place in the science classroom as science, neither does the theory of evolution.What evolutionists are doing is changing the definition of how science proves theories are true through actual testing, and now declares evolution is proved through predictions.

---

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

Except, of course, you are totally mistaken about evolution. It meets the standardns for science.1) It has evidence for it.
2) It makes predictions that have been demonstrated to occur,
3) It is testable.
4) It explains the available data.
5) It is falsifiable.