>>A little confused here, if it’s a good idea to teach different lines of evolution hypothesis in an attempt to close some serious gaps in the old model, then what makes the old model more ‘viable’ than the idea that there is design in nature?<<
Any scientific theory taught needs to meet the standards for what a scientific theory is - i.e. accurately making predictions and/or being testable. The current theory of evolution has made many accurate predictions about nature while the ID model has not.
That’s not a specific knock on ID but rather a general standard that crosses borders of all the sciences.
(and BTW its one reason physicists are discussing giving up on string theory - no valid predictions).
the prediction of design can and has been tested and has resulted in the same conclusions based on opinion that evolution has. Irreducible hypothesis predicts design will break down when degredation happens, and scientifically shows how that design breaks down- and scientifically shows the connections of organisms and organs and microbiological dependencies. They present the evidences, and then give opinions about what those evidences suggest- same as evolution. The only real difference is that the evolutionist presents their evidences with the assumption that everythign can be explained naturally, while design opines that not everythign can be shown to have occured naturally, and they present the evidences that they think backs this position up. Evolutionistscan’t and haven’t been able to prove everythign coems from natural process, they only surmise that they do- ID can’t obviously prove everything was created, they only surmise- It seems to me that one groups summeries are allowed as ‘science’ while the other’s is not.