However, later I learned there is much debate on the topics discussed in schools, and none of these were ever mentioned when I was being taught particle to human evolution.

For example, why didn’t they tell us the Miller experiment created a toxic environment for life? What’s with the claims of the peppermoths? That wasn’t even particle-to-human evolution, yet they said it proved millions of years. Our current dating methods are flawless? Yeah right.

Maybe it’s just my textbook, but the least athiests can do is update their textbooks to bring real facts.

For example:
1) fact / evidence
2) fact / evidence
3) therefore.. I interpret this evidence to imply millions of years.

Currently it is:
1) the earth is 100% billions of years old
2) this happened, therefore we proved billions of years
3) this other thing proves billions of years

It’s as if their presuppositions determine the evidence, specifically their interpretations of evidence.

I agree ID is NOT science. But, you can interpret evidence to fit ID theology, which basically teaches everything a student needs to know to succeed in life.

For example, it’s quite clear the for the Galapagos islands, there was once a finch. The finch branched off to a variety of finches within a thousand or two years. That doesn’t conflict with any faith, and it demonstrates natural selection.

I believe the teaching of evolution can be revised to state just the facts and observations, without referring to the origins of life.

If athiests want to prove millions of years, then show the evidence. Don’t insist on it without proof like the current high school textbooks do, because that isn’t science!

Let me know what you think.

I’m familiar with Dembski and his writing. I don’t have the time today to give you a full response but I will do in as soon as I get some free time.

Adam

This is a sweeping and damning statement which to my knowledge it is basically untrue. William Dembski in his book ‘Intelligent Design’ (IVP, 1999) sets out a clear scientific method for testing ID and as I have stated above, if traditional scientific axioms were re-assessed today, ID does rationally provide a sound means by which natural evolution could be falsified by means of empirical evidence and so should be accepted by main-stream science.
It is a red herring to suggest that a ‘sitting’ scientific theory should only be replaced when there is widespread worry about its efficacy. Newton’s laws of gravity and motion were very well seated and respected and it took some years for Einstein’s theory of general relativity to be accepted as a replacement, simply because it was a higher level explanation which was eventually shown to be supported by empirical evidence.
I put it to you that ID is a similar higher level scientific explanation that may in time be shown to fit the empirical data better than the theory of evolution. As you know conclusions that are based on ignoring possible verifiable axioms (such as design) are bound to be weaker than those that are inclusive and are likely to fall into a circular trap (as indeed current evolutionary theory does).
regards Mike

If something is beyond and above nature would you not describe it as supernature?

I understand what you’re saying – about the presuppositions – the axioms – that we take for granted. I mentioned this in another post on the limits of mathematics.

The sole purpose if the ID movement is to manipulate science to fulfill their agenda. I’ll return to this assertion in the future. For now, take a look at this: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html

ID however does legitimately come within the realm of philosophy and philosophers should make serious effort to critique and incorporate its findings. It is quite legitimate for philosophers to examine both the physical, metaphysical and logic claims of ID

The Intelligent Design theory was launched in 1991 when Phillip Johnson, a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley, published his book Darwin on Trial. The idea proposes that the intricate complexity of plants and animals is evidence that life could only be the work of an intelligent designer, not evolution. The theory stops short of declaring what or who the intelligent designer might be.

“It’s like finding a radio and thinking it was simple and then opening it up and realizing it has many many different parts,” said Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University and author of another book about Intelligent Design, Darwin’s Black Box. “By its intricacy you know it had to be put together by intellect.”

David Haury, a professor of science education at The Ohio State University, adds that science is made up of theories and so it is unfair to single out the theory of evolution as unproven.

“There are no proven theories in science,” he said. “If we point out that evolution is unproven, we’ll need to point out that the theory of gravity is also unproven. And evolution is a much stronger theory than the theory of gravity. Evolution is the scientific view that needs to be presented.”

Unlike past movements to include the biblical theory of creation in school’s science plans, proponents of Intelligent Design deny their agenda is a religious one. Behe explains the theory points out weaknesses in Darwin’s theory of evolution and tries to present the “best explanation of how the world got here.” The fact that the theory’s explanation is mystical, says Behe, is beside the point.

“All we’re saying is teachers should be encouraged to point out difficulties with the theory of evolution,”

Lee

This related essays provide a unique understanding of the relationship between exoteric religion and scientISM.

1. http://www.dabase.net/creamyth.htm
2. http://www.dabase.net/noface.htm
3. http://www.dabase.net/christmc2.htm
4. http://www.dabase.net/dht6.htm
5. http://www.dabase.net/dht7.htm