Is it closer to 1% or 1/10 of 1%?
Ok, let’s assume that’s accurate. It was zero, then it was 1/20, then 1/15, now 1/10. I don’t need to explain what happens over the years right?
Yet, even when we get to a decent percentage, you will still either 1. Still continue to not accept or 2. Come up with another interpretation of the Bible to co-exist with evolution, as many already have like Mark N.
Why would I reject empirical evidence of transitional forms? :roll:
For all I know it’s closer to 1/1000 of 1% have that been found.
Darwin considered them absolutely essential to give support to his theory so I think it is reasonable not to accept incomplete and very miniscule evidence that transitional forms have been found.
They may be anomalies, freaks or genetic mutations. Is this not plausible?
How about my question regarding legitimate inquiry for intelligent design?
This just goes to show your EXTREME ignorance in the understanding of evolution. Evolution is based on genetic mutations.
Intelligent design? Intelligent design theory doesn’t belong in the field of science because it isn’t science. All it does is list alleged deficiencies in evolution, the “gaps” in the fossil record. ID is just the “default assumption” that if theory A has some difficulty in explaining a phenomenon, we should prefer theory B without requiring any evidence.
One side is required to produce evidence, every step of the way. The other side is never required to produce any, but is deemed to have won automatically, the moment the first side encounters a difficulty.
The “gaps” mean that we lack a complete record of every step in the evolutionary process. If the same demand was put on ID, we would need a complete record of God’s behaviour when creating life and all the workings of it. Is that likely to happen?
I don’t agree. We are not out to prove the existence of God only to accept the possibility of an outside source for life as we know it.
From your remarks above I conclude that you think ID has no place in science curriculum or academic study and that only the accepted “dogma” of the evolutionists is worthy of study.
I will correct my conclusion if you take issue with it.
I’ve always said that there could be a god and that the theory of evolution could be wrong (although highly unlikely with the overwhelming evidence provided). Again, a Christian could never take the same position.
ID is not a pursuit of evidence, it was created to disprove evolution. It is not a science and therefore should not exist in a science classroom. Leave it in theology or even philosophy.
Richard Dawkins:
“If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it’s no solution to raise the theologian’s plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case get it out of the science classroom and send it back into the church, where it belongs.”
Kevin, you have been outed as dogmatic and bigoted.
Your mind is is indeed closed if you can not accept ID as a legitimate area of inquiry.
You would control the discussion to exclude all lines of inquiry that might lead one to draw a different conclusion than the one you have already deemed infallible.
What is it that you don’t understand about the fact that ID does not use scientific methods and therefore is not a science. It’s really pretty simple to see. I don’t mind if people continue to try an disprove evolution using the theory of ID, it just doesn’t belong on a science classroom as it is not science.
Let’s hear one piece of scientific evidence that supports ID.
As soon as ID can be held to the same standards as every other field of science, it can co-exist in the science classroom.
Now that you’ve heard my opinion, lets hear why it should be.
Watch the video and read the report before you go spouting off again.
I watched the video, all I heard was complaining, no evidence. The second link wouldn’t work on the Mac that I’m on but I’ll check it out when I get home. Was there evidence given in the second link?
The second was a pdf of congressional hearings on the issue.
Well, until ID comes up with some evidence to support it, this discussion is moot. If it were a true science, no one would have an objection to it being taught in the science classroom. The absurdity of calling ID a science is astounding.
Read the PM I sent you.
This is my last post on this thread.
It belongs in the not for everyone area. But you already know that.
I read it and responded. I’d be happy to move the thread. After everyone else continued to post political threads (that you continued to participate in) in this section I wasn’t sure if the accepted rule changed.