Whether evolution or ID are better scientifically is the HEART of the debate. No matter what your opinion might be.
***The HEART of the debate is what is good for us as a society and what should be taught to our children.
Or you could just refrain from talking about things you know nothing about.
***I'm here to discuss social policy, not the minute details of a theory that I don't care much about. I know as much as others who make policy know about this subject.
Yet you feel free to make ludicrous statements about the social consequences of a theory you admit to having no understanding of.
***NO understanding? A bit of an exxageration, isn't it? And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? As far as ludicrous thingie, good insult. Good Holy Warrior. Comfort yourself.
Why do you say it is *above* nature and therefore supernatural? This is nutty.
***First 2 entries for "supernatural" at Dictionary.com: Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. Super comes from the word that means Above, and natural, is...well... nature. How is that nutty? I see that you didn't bother to insert some egghead scientific stuff here, so does that mean I can't expect it from you on this subject?
It's exactly what you want.
***That's not what I want, so stop trying to read my mind. Just read my posts.
You want Joe six-pack with no understanding of the science (like you) making decisions on what is or isn't science.
***Wrong. Straw argument, and it even ignores what I posted about the subject, which I reproduce here: Ok, I'll answer your question, feel free for the sake of those honest and genuine lurkers, to IGNORE my question. The answer is, no, I don't WANT such people deciding what the science curriculum is, but I ACCEPT that such people are, I AGREE with them on a philosophical level, I SEE some of the same problems with this theory that they see, and I THINK that there could be some good science that results from all of this discussion and exercise. The social policy implications are fascinating. SHOULD we let Astrologers into Astronomy classes? At what point is a fun pursuit a pseudoscience? From all the evidence I've looked at on both sides, I do not think that ID rises to the same level of pseudoscience that Astrology does. So, what should be the critera for establishing that something is a pseudoscience? I happen to think that when one of my professors bloviated about haps-based evolution, she was crossing the same kind of line.
Stop hiding from your own arguments.
***Stop using straw arguments.
Then you know nothing of what evolution says, just as we figured.
***The plain and simple fact is, this is how some young evolutionists process the moral implications of the theory. Maybe they know enough, maybe they don't. If the theory itself is so sophisticated that youngsters can't process it properly when it gets applied to their own behavior, then it has no business being taught to impressionable kids. It belongs in a 2nd or 3rd year bio class for bio majors and maybe philosophy majors.
The species is not the unit of selection. It is an explanation of what is and what has happened, not a proscription for behavior.
***Yeah, I've heard that one before, in the islamofascist community. Here's how it goes... "Now, kids, whatever you do, never [wink wink] ever [wink wink] point one of these rocket propelled grenades at a SLIMY, Baby-eating, pig-worshipping [note no winking here] american convoy [wink wink] or Allah will be very [wink wink] displeased." And to both of them I say, bull cookies. There are obvious moral implications to this theory that need to be dealt with if you guys want it to be taught to impressionable kids.
All smoke, no substance. It's hard to tell if you are trying to come off sounding as ignorant as possible as a joke or you really mean it.
***I get that a lot.