What if creationism did get into the science class

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal but revised by Philip playing the Devil-ution's advocate:

No form of mutant monster theories should be taught in a science classroom - including the current forms of punctuated equilibria. No matter how you dress it up, punctuated equilibria as pushed by the likes of neo-Darwinists, is nothing more than monstrous mutations hidden away in pseudo-scientific jargon to confuse the gullible.

​

I will grant that if (and this is a mighty big if) MUTATIONALISTS come up with anything resembling evidence for significant gross mutation or incremental mutants beyond the usual punctuated equilibria logic or argument from incredulity, then MAYBE it could be considered for inclusion in a science curriculum. As it stands, they have NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. ZIP. I don't particularly care how many scientific illiterates want mega-mutants treated on equal footing with evolution. Argumentum ad populum is just another fallacy - and since that's the best mutationalists can come up with...

​

BTW: I'd love to see your "evidence against ID" that should be taught in science class. What "evidence" do you think you've got?

---

(--Sorry Quetzel, I couldn’t resist your rhetoric. This wall of science fraud and fallacy must come down.)

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Very cute. Now do you have anything substantive to add? For example, at least ONE piece of verifiable data or ONE single observation that can be better explained by ID than by ToE? God-of-the-gaps, argument from incredulity, argument from authority, and argumentum ad populum do NOT constitute evidence.

​

Also, please provide YOUR particular version of punk-eq. It appears you have erected some kind of saltationist strawman, but you haven't really provided any details on the model you claim to argue against

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 05-31-2002]

---

--Quetzal, please see rebuttal under thread Questions Evos can’t or won’t answer [#48] which has little to no satire (which I admit I suck at), which contains scientific rebuttals of mutationalism (without going into ID).--I support no version of punk-eq on scientific grounds at present, not even special creation (at this time). All punk-eq models require too much delusion for my non-mutationalist logic.--I hate forcing religion more than anyone; especially in science class. ID is a broad term that may include UFOs, right? You know that’s fair argument. Anti-ID is highly suspicious scientifically, humanistically, and ethically (I did not say religiously)

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-31-2002]

--I will try to discuss with you on another thread that relates more to 'ID' directly. (Don't know which one yet.)