rice09 Wrote:

I45Owl Wrote:Yes evolution is taught as the only credible scientific explanation...but that doesn't make it so.
...

...

I45Owl Wrote:

Quote:Evolution is not the first issue where science has exposed dogmatic beliefs to be myth.

Nor is it the first issue where scientific dogma has been exposed to be myth. (See the history of heliocentric universe, phlogiston, germ theory of disease, etc.)

I'll presume you're a youngster, so your editing skills can be forgiven, but it's a gross distortion (I'm sure unintentional) to think I'm responsible for those quotes (someone was responding to my statements). Just for the record. (and :chair: bad freshman, :chair: bad freshman).

I45Owl Wrote:I'll presume you're a youngster, so your editing skills can be forgiven, but it's a gross distortion (I'm sure unintentional) to think I'm responsible for those quotes (someone was responding to my statements).  Just for the record.  (and  :chair: bad freshman,  :chair: bad freshman).

I am very sorry for the mistake, it has now been fixed :bang: . If it is any excuse (doubtful), my computer wasn't letting me submit from the quote page, and when I tried to get the same result through copy and pasting, your quote tag was first (which I repeated in the second quote box because I had assumed that the code was correct for the first box). The mistake was due to my inexperience with the board system software. I will be sure to double check all quote codes in the future.

rice09 Wrote:I agree that evolution should not be taught as a fact or otherwise the only possible explanation. However, that isn't an argument for teaching ID. Its an argument for teaching challenges to evolutionary theory.

There seems to be much agreement on this point. Perhaps a sticker in a textbook stating there are challenges to the theory?

This is precisely the argument that waged in Georgia. Yet the folks there were called names and they are bashed for trying to censor science.
Check out the facts: the current establishment is the one censoring all intellectual inquiries into the theory of evolution. You don't even have to support ID to respect the fact that these people are challenging a dogmatic, irrational set of beliefs.

Quote:As for other theories being censored, the Discovery Institute ought to be able to raise plenty of money for such research. Thanks to electronic distribution, and on-demand printing, it would cost next to nothing to put out their own peer-reviewed scientific journal on ID.

I believe such publications exist. But then the argument changes to "it's who peer reviewed your work." Once again, it's a circular argument that holds no merit.

Quote:Of course, if ID is untestable, then it will never be interesting from a scientific point of view.

Curious, b/c evolution supporters give a very different answer:

Quote:3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or
falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not
observed and can never be re-created.
...
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the
defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher
Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations
on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation
of his principle precisely because it would eliminate
too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

<a href='http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/wackononsense.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/...ckononsense.pdf</a>

Of course there is more to the article than I posted. But the bottom line is that most macro-evolution is based on inferrences, not validated observations.

Quote:One could introduce millions of other untestable theories.

Indeed.

Quote:Evolution can make predictions and explain modern phenomena (resistance to antibiotics, for example)

As can ID.

Quote:

DrTorch Wrote:

Quote:Evolution is not the first issue where science has exposed dogmatic beliefs to be myth.

Nor is it the first issue where scientific dogma has been exposed to be myth. (See the history of heliocentric universe, phlogiston, germ theory of disease, etc.)

Yet, scientists who were taught such dogma managed to get other scientists back on track.

Let's hope we can do the same in this instance!

Admin help??? The quote mechanism has gone fubar.

A couple of things seem in order. The first is a visit to dictionary.com for a definition of [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dogma]dogma[url]. Whilst emotions may compel individuals to act in dogmatic fashion, in no way shape or form can evolution be said to be dogma, nor can the body of theory be said to be irrational. This is an absurd comparison, and I would expect better from you, DrTorch. Given substantial arguments, however, it could be said to be incorrect.

As for name-calling, need I bring up the campaign in Pennsylvania where Christians called other Christians unChristian for challenging school board members that attempted to mandate that Creation Science ID be taught?