We are trying to let this thread die. Quoting a 7th grade science text book at this point in the thread is well... let's just let it go away.
This debate has really fallen apart... Two things to point out. 1. ID shouldnt be taught in school science classes because it doesnt qualify as science. God cant be proven or disproven via the scientific method which means this question doesnt fall under the realm of science. Its purely a philosophical question at best and should be discussed in philosophy classes. 2. Now to ID as an actual argument... There probably is some merit to it. Evolution does have a lot of holes in it. (i.e. the carbon dating system used to justify some ideas is still rather inaccurate) Also, there are still holes in the chain of evolution that no one can explain. ID definitely seems rather plausible when looking at this but my answer is that these holes are simply because we just dont know enough yet and doesn't automatically mean God has something to do with it. If ID is correct, then I could say that since we dont know the origin of quasars in space, then quasars are caused by God or that since we don't know how the easter island statues were built we can just assume that God did it when in fact people probably built it, we just dont know enough yet.
You would be incorrect. No scientist worth his salt believes that evolution *theory* is actually evolution *law*. I posit that you are approaching evolution from a fact based perspective and are morphing evolution theory into a set of well understood, immutable facts (aka a scientific law). In 1925, we had the Scopes Trial. In 2005, we had the Kansas ID trial. Any bets 80 years from now, we will still have people trying to change science to conform to their religious beliefs.
The annoying part of the debate is that the pro-ID crowd keeps jumping from #1 to #2 then back to #1 and so forth.
It's probably a good idea to let this thread die, But I would still like to discuss if anyone would like too. jyodacs@hotmail.com Thanks for a great discussion everyone.
They were my own words actually, based on having seen quite a bit of the data over the years . Its funny those textbook guys dont just make things up. Anyway, let the thread die by all means.
I'm sorry but these two sentences show that I'm not going to be able to rationally discuss this with you. I hope you don't interpret this as a slam but there's no way that this can be discussed with someone who considers prophecy as valid scientific evidence. Unless of course you can empiracally prove prophecy.
I am sure he doesn't expect to discuss with you. Didn't you see his sig says "Don't believe what you read in the next post"?
Of all the arguments that ID proponents make this is the one that I find the most troubling. It goes directly to the reason why most ardent ID proponents are also very religious because they are viewing this debate not through scientific terms but religious terms. They're seeing this as a battle between atheism and religion and that since Evolution doesn't specifically address God or higher power it is the same as religion but an atheistic faith. That isn't the case at all. Evolution is about the differentation of species not about whether God exist or not. There is nothing contradictory with believing in God and also accepting Evolution. It is only through the most shallow and literalist interpretation that Evolution is seen as a threat to religion.
I am getting too sensitive and thin skinned in my old age Sishir Chang, cause I immediately thought you were about to name names. God bless and good night.
In other scientific developments with biblical implications: the sun has been confirmed as the center of the universe. Galileo gets a reprieve.
