Someone correct me if I’m wrong. If a scientific theory is “proven wrong” isn’t part of that “proven wrong” thing supposed to provide an explanation of *everything* the original theory explained plus something new that the old theory didn’t cover?

So, simply put what is it that ID explains (if anything) that evolution didn’t?

There seems to be this unspoken understanding by ID folks that once evolution has been shouted down that by default ID will win. I don’t think it works that way.

Then there’s the (falatious apeal to dire consequences argument here, but I truly wonder…) what will the US look like after evolution has been “swept aside” in favor of a newer more modern theory like ID? The point is that evolution, and the theories around it get into every aspect of science.

Since we’re in the mood to throw out old theories let’s toss out atomic theorie. After all, since the Earth is really only 6,000 years old, all that business about radioactive decay and millions or billions of years has to go.

2. ID is valid science.
Question: What evidence would convince you ID is not true?
A real scientific theory MUST be falsifiable, if it is to be believed.
I have also yet to encounter an ID’er who thinks there is or ever will be evidence proving God did not create humans.

The Dover trial will no doubt address these, and hopefully at least some in this country will realize that DNA is a better link to our past than the Bible.

All the ID proponents here seem to support ID because they believe in creationism and think it should be given time in the classroom even though it is not scientific.

But the defendants in the case are trying to prove that ID is scientific and is not creationism, since it is clearly established that teaching creationism in public schools is illegal.

One can assert that ID is not religious (though it appears cler that it is, according to its inventors’ own words), but how does one support the opinion that it is scientific without following any of the steps of the scientific method?

I think it’s painfully clear the trial will show there is no way. The defendants may as well have adopted a standard curriculum from the start and simply donated money to the ACLU.

Science makes certain assumptions in it’s quest to understand our world and universe. Saying “It just happened” or “It was just designed that way” isn’t good enough–it’s dead end, scientifically speaking. The proper way to teach science, particularly evolutionary biology, IMO, is to help students understand what biologists mean by “random,” “undirected” etc., and how these suppositions lead to fruitful research and experimentation.

If you (generically speaking) are a Strict Creationist–yes, you’ve got a problem these days. A stop at any natural history museum in this country will attest to that. But I honestly don’t have much sympathy for people who hold that the Earth is 6000 years old and Noah crammed all the dinosaurs in the ark, or whatever.

Any thinking person of faith has to confront the challenges to faith raised by history, physics, geology, literary studies, etc. Singling out evolutionary biology (as opposed to Darwinism), misrepresenting it and seeking to undermine it are counterproductive.

If you don’t have a problem with evolution per se, then I would say, don’t contribute to confusion about what it does or doesn’t seek to explain.

Everything is based on this simplicity…the sould you have is electricity.

Yes, but what is that? I’m not being snarky–what is “the breath of life”?

A biologist is naturally going to seek a scientific explanation, if he or she can, of what that means in physical terms.

Yes, but what is that? I’m not being snarky–what is “the breath of life”?

A biologist is naturally going to seek a scientific explanation, if he or she can, of what that means in physical terms. It’s what they do.

The photographs of cells and other microscopic matter you see in biology textbooks are also “staged”. Sometimes they even tint them pretty colors to make them easier to see. Does that mean they’re fake?

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. It deals with the development of life. There is a branch of evolutionary science that attempts to answer this question scientifically. There are a number of theories, but no consensus has been reached at this point.

Since the Bible explicitly states that God made man from the dust of the earth, I personally don’t see any conflict with a scientific theory which postulates that life arose from inert matter.