Replies

I have somehow managed to avoid most ID/evo discussions but after listening to the "science" teacher at my kids grade school (Jupiter Christian Academy) explain ID I am now very concerned.

Can someone clarify this authors statement :The problem is "we've got people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and that God put the fossils in the ground,"

Is this representative of the ID argument?

No. It is a "strawman" argument, you tell your listeners
what the "opponent" is (which usually has then arguing
for an undefensible position) and then you wipe him out.
Don't do that when playing football, politics, or war,
or you will get thine holy a** kicked.

Is this representative of the ID argument?

Good question.

I have been asking, on every one of these threads, for two weeks, exactly what it is that ID advocates believe.

I know, at a minimum, they question whether natural selection is sufficient to produce the diversity of life from a common ancestor -- but what alternative do they propose?

Do ID advocates accept the geologically accepted age of the earth? Do they accept descent with modification -- even assuming a different mechanism for the modifications? If they propose a different mechanism, what is it? How would we test for it? What kind of evidence would they expect to find that is different from what an evolutionist would expect? What kind of research would the propose to distinguish between the predictions of evolution and ID?

In short, given free reign, what would ID teach?

Can someone clarify this authors statement "The problem is "we've got people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and that God put the fossils in the ground,"

Is this representative of the ID argument?

Whoever made this statement has (intentionally and dishonestly?) confused biblical creationism with Intelligent design. Intelligent design makes no claims about the age of the earth .

regarding another statement in the article

With most people content with being scientifically illiterate

Unfortunately a large number of these people are "scientists." Too many of the science educated do not understand the real underpinnings of science and think it is the explanation for everything. Most importantly they trust calculations, speculations, simulations and peer review. They do not rely on experimentation and verified evidence. They follow the politically expedient and accept only the data which support politically acceptable theories rather than probe for that which might discredit it. Lastly, they fail to realize that true science's concentration on verifiable results means it can describe but not explain.