untrained: There's no way to test for evolution over millions of years either.
You can check fossil records and find some evidence of evolution. However, it's a huge jump of faith to extrapolate that and say that the world evolved from some form of primordial sludge at the beginning of time. Even then evolution cannot explain where that primordial sludge came from.
You just admitted that the fossil record is evidence. That's one sort of test. There is also the manifest evidence -- and more of it every day -- from genetics. All this evidence points in exactly the same direction, and none of it contradicts the theory of evolution. Again, evolution is not a theory about origins, so your question about where the primordial sludge came from, fascinating as it is (really), doesn't apply.
Further, evolution is not a "leap of faith." It is the best explanation we have that takes in all the known facts. When a better explanation comes along, that new explanation will become the operative theory. There is no faith involved.
Evolution simply can't explain how the things got there that started evolving, or what set them on that path.
Again, evolution isn't about origins and it doesn't pretend to be.
If not being able to be proven makes it not be science, evolution is not science.
No scientific theory is ever proved. In this evolution is exactly the same as every other scientific theory.
There are still simply questions that are better answered by divine intervention than by evolution.
Not in science.
Excluding intelligent design as a possible theory isn't science. It's the suppression of science.
All scientific theories are subject to testing. What's the test for id? What does the theory predict (i.e., "If id is true, then facts a, b, and c will emerge").
G: "Right. You also have to have a means of attempting to prove or disprove it."
untrained: Actually we don't have the means to prove or disprove scientific theories, or they're no longer theories. If we can prove it it is considered a law, not a theory. The scientific process is the search for a way to prove or disprove a theory.
We don't ever prove theories, but we do look for evidence and for possible disproof. Theories don't "graduate" to laws.
G: "For the perhaps billionth time this month, no scientific theory is ever proven. Why should the theory of evolution be different?"
untrained: Exactly, you just contradicted your assertion that intelligent design isn't a scientific theory because it we haven't found a way to prove it.
Intelligent design isn't a theory because we can't test for it. That's not the same as "prove" it. It also predicts nothing ... like I say in the next sentence you quoted.
G: " ID does not rise to the level of a scientific theory because it can't be tested by any known method, and it predicts nothing."
untrained: Absolute BS. How can you test that the world evolved from nothing at the beginning of time?
Please note that your question had nothing to do with mine, so it was non-responsive.
Your objection to the theory of evolution is based on a false premise (that evolution includes something other than speciation and what happens over long periods of time), and if it were stated correctly, so as to eliminate the matter of origins, it would still be wrong. When he proposed the theory of evolution, Darwin noted many possible tests for the theory, and they've been met both in ways he expected and in ways he never anticipated.
G: "That people who do not accept ID believe that God does not exist is contrary to fact. There are many right here on FR who believe in God, who understand that the theory of evolution is science, and that ID isn't."
untrained: Then they apparently don't know what science is. There isn't an invisible wall between science and religion. A honest scientist will tell you that there's much more about this world that we don't understand than we do understand.
We disagree on whether the people in question understand science, and we further disagree on whether the people who are touting id do. Your note about an honest scientist is completely true, by the way. I suspect that scientists have a much better grasp of what we don't understand than most of us do. What keeps science and religion in different realms, I would say, is the need for evidence in science and the need for faith in religion. While there may be room for evidence in religion, there is no room for faith in science. (Do not read this as an attempt to belittle religion; it's not. I merely point out that they're different).
This is why PHDs are Doctorates of Philosophy in a certain discipline. This is because the more you learn, the more you realize how little we really know. If you forget that and close yourself off from possible theories because of dogma, you're limited your ability to learn through the scientific method.
And injecting any given religion into science is injecting that religion's dogma.
ID is a valid scientific theory.
Evolution is a valid scientific theory.
ID is not a valid scientific theory for a number of reasons. There's no way to test for it. It rests on proving a negative and an argument from astonishment, which is a logical fallacy ("It is impossible for 'x' to have happened, therefore it must be id"). And it makes no predictions.
On the other hand, the theory of evolution has withstood many tests over roughly 150 years. Transitional fossils, lacking in Darwin's day, have been found all over the world. Genetic mapping has demonstrated that certain animals are related to each other in ways we hadn't suspected. But none of it has given any scientist reason to doubt the overall theory. It's unquestionably science.
People who say that one or the other is not are not doing so on the basis of science, but on the basis of blind faith. That may be faith in God, or faith in something else.
We clearly disagree.
Cladistics is at least as good circumstantial evidence as finding a trout in the milk. All criteria lead to essentially the same tree; no lawns either.
"You just admitted that the fossil record is evidence. That's one sort of test. There is also the manifest evidence -- and more of it every day -- from genetics. All this evidence points in exactly the same direction, and none of it contradicts the theory of evolution. Again, evolution is not a theory about origins, so your question about where the primordial sludge came from, fascinating as it is (really), doesn't apply."
Sure, there's evidence that supports the theory of evolution. The problem is that any evidence that contradicts evolution can be explained away by the theory of evolution.
Find a critter that didn't seem to evolve? Well, then there must have been two seperat evolutionary paths that branched farther back in history. One branch may have evolved faster than the other. I mean, after all, this is all just random chance. You can't expect an orderly progression without a design.
If there is an orderly progression is would be evidence of a possible design.
Evolution doesn't preclude a design. An inteligent design may very well include evolution. Neither can explain away the other completely no mater how much evidence you gather. That's one of the reasons why they are theories.
"Further, evolution is not a "leap of faith." It is the best explanation we have that takes in all the known facts. When a better explanation comes along, that new explanation will become the operative theory. There is no faith involved."
Any time you choose to believe in an unproven theory you are making a leap of faith. If you accept it as a theory, rather than fact, it does not require a leap of faith. This is true if we're talking about evolution or ID.
"Again, evolution isn't about origins and it doesn't pretend to be."
I would have to argue that people try to make it explain everything, but the origins are where the theory breaks down.
When you refuse to consider the origins, you're refusing to look at one of the main problems with the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't explain how things got started. Nothing really does explain the origins, buecause even if you say God created the universe, where did God come from?
However it's a valid theory to question if some intillegent being may have created the universe, and then it brings into question how much of what we see as evolution is random chance and natural selection as opposed to a design that includes a degree of random chance and natrual selection.
These are theories. There aren't hard and fast answers. We need to teach students theories, and we need to teach them as theories.
The teachers unions and groups like the ACLU are trying to keep the theory of ID out of schools and only teach one possible theory. When you only teach one possible theory and exclude all other theories and not being credible, you're in effect teaching that theory as fact, and not teaching students to think for themselves.
"There are still simply questions that are better answered by divine intervention than by evolution.
Not in science."
Why? Because you define science to exclude the supernatural? That's funny since science evolved from the study of things though to be supernatural.
"Intelligent design isn't a theory because we can't test for it. That's not the same as "prove" it. It also predicts nothing ... like I say in the next sentence you quoted."
You can't come up with a test for evolution that can't be explained away by different paths of evolution that branched at an earlier point in time that may have evolved at different rates. That's the nature of explaining something through random chance over a nearly infinite period of time.
It's no more disprovable than ID. It's just more accepted by those who CHOOSE not to consider as a valid theory.
"We disagree on whether the people in question understand science, and we further disagree on whether the people who are touting id do."
Too much of a generalization about the people touting ID. I don't question that there are some people pushing ID for blind religious reasons. There are also people pushing evolution because of their opposition to religion.
That neither supports or diminishes the viability of either theory.
"I suspect that scientists have a much better grasp of what we don't understand than most of us do."
My father has a PHD in Physics and I grew up in an environment very supportive of education and learning to think critically. I've got a BS and a MS degree. Those degrees mean I've got more background information and know more rules to apply to subjects than some other people.
I've taught classes while getting my masters degree.
Here's what I learned. Facts are nice, but they don't really amount to knowledge until you're able to question them and understand how they all fit together. You can't do that by excluding ideas because preconceived notions such as calling things not science because they involve something you don't understand.
It's just as important to realize what you don't know as what you do know.
Despite the education I've attained, I've often found people who are able to figure out things that elude me and explain them to me that have very little formal education. Sometimes what we think we know can be a barrier to learning. Excluding theories such as ID because they aren't considered Science is a barrier to learning that serves no useful purpose.
Teaching ID as a theory merely exposes students to the fact that we don't know all the facts and that there are different theories out there that might explain things. The possibility that there may be some intelligent entity that has had a hand in our world becomming what it is isn't some new concept that no one considers a possibility. So why exclude it and teach only one theory?