Intelligent Design has no Place in the Classroom of Science

As best we can tell, it is also not potentially possible to tell, and it is the absence of a potential falsification that leads people to deny that it is science.It isn't currently possible to falsify the claim that our sun will become a red giant after a few billion years. But it is potentially possible -- all we need to do is migrate to a safe distance and wait for a few billion years.

So what potentially can be a test for 'intelligent design'.

As currently formulated, I don't think there could be a test. It's all philosophy, no science.Could there be empirically testable procedures for determining design? Maybe, but such procedures would probably show that evolved things are very different from designed things.

Then, you will agree then, since it is philophy it has no business being taught as science.

I don't think that was the real issue here. We were just juggling semantics.
Potential for future falsification by some means as yet unknown against falsification via currently possible methods.For me the biggest deal is how you falsify something which has yet to actually propose anything.

I certainly agree that ID should not be taught as science.I don't completely agree with the statement in the topic title. It seems to me that a biology teacher should be able to take a small amount of time to discuss ID, and to explain to the class why it is not science.

I am not a mathematician. But, I have heard from few Biophysicists that Evolution cannot be substantiated by mathematics. Chemical evolution is a statistical improbability. If chemical evolution is impossible, how can biological evolution occur? This is where I am now. Neither Creation Nor Evolution can be proved. Therefore, we must admit to the students that at present there is no definite answer for the question, how life came into existence. Let the students find out the answer.

I am a mathematician. The idea "that Evolution cannot be substantiated by mathematics" is just silly. Mathematics is not in the business of substantiating empirical science. You might just as well say that Evolution cannot be substantiated by playing music. What does that even mean? I notice how you slip from "improbability" to "impossible." Maybe you need that kind of jumping to conclusions to get any support at all for creationism. There is solid evidence for evolution. There is no evidence at all for creation. Evolution is an account of the diversity of life. It does not address the question of how life came into existence. Most biologists will agree that the question of how life came into existence is still an open question.

Chemical evolution is both improbable as well as impossible.

The ordinary non-biological meaning of "evolution" is change over time. In any chemical reaction, there is change over time. Thus chemical evolution is regularly observed, and is as near certain as anything physical can be.

I have asked for logic, and I have got it. Or at least a sad empty facade masquerading as logic. Let's examine this:

quote:

---

But, I have heard from few Biophysicists that Evolution cannot be substantiated by mathematics.

---

Very few biophysicists, in fact.-

quote:

---

Chemical evolution is a statistical improbability.

---

This is false. The exact conditions under which the origin of life occurred are still a matter of investigation, therefore it is not possible to produce an accurate mathematical model of the process by which the first imperfectly replicating systems first arose and then evolved into the first cells. Therefore, it is not possible to determine how probably or improbable the process is.-

quote:

---

If chemical evolution is impossible....

---

Whoops. Changing "improbable" into "impossible".-

quote:

---

...how can biological evolution occur?

---

Nonsequitur. Biological evolution only needs the existence of life. Life may have always existed, life may have arisen through very probable and simple abiotic processes on the early earth, life may have arisen through very "improbable chemical evolution" processes, or life may have been created ex nihilo by a "intelligent designer". But life certainly does exist, it certainly has existed for several billion years, and it has evolved from simple protozoan precursors into the diversity we see today.-

quote:

---

Neither Creation Nor Evolution can be proved.

---

Perhaps, but evolution has certainly been shown to be the very likely process that produced the current biosphere in which we live. Perhaps evolution did not happen, and the earth was created only 6000 years ago; in that case, the trickster demiurge that did the creating also created an earth with every appearance of being several billions of years old and a very well documented history. A possibility, yes, but how reasonable is this?-

quote:

---

Therefore, we must admit to the students that at present there is no definite answer for the question, how life came into existence.

---

No definite answer as yet, true. But as research continues in the field, scientists are reaching greater understanding about the processes that gave rise to the first living cells three and a half billion years ago.-

quote:

---

Let the students find out the answer.

---

People are trying to educate students to understand the science, but creationists and IDists keep trying to muddy the waters with elements of their particularly lame creation myths.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Can you show me one example for chemical evolution? Chemical reactions are fully orderd. Certain reactions can never occur.

What is life? Is it abunch of chemicals? Can you define life?

Rusting is chemical evolution.If you mean something different, then it is up to you to define your terms.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-28-2006 11:14 PM

Nonsensical and not particularly relevant to the question at hand. This is a thread about whether or not we want to teach intelligent design in the public schools. If you have good reasons to do so despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever that intelligent design is found in biological systems, then you may explain your reasoning.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt