Originally posted by Stealth
assume sometimes it's referring to the 'land', and other times to the 'planet'... it still makes sense.
plus, remember at the time, saying the earth was "suspended upon nothing" was unheard of. so still correct.
Oh, 'assume'? Very concrete. And that should be taught? 'Assume' you're right, even if you have to make stuff up?
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Its interesting that you say that the Bible has no place in science, considering that archeologists (part of sciences) have found the bible to be an excellent source for locating and excavating long lost civilizations (the "fabled" Hitites among them). Semantecs aside, the science in the bible speaks for itself.
That's because the bible is a historical, mythological document. Same as we found the cities of Troy partly based on the Illiad, for example. That doesn't mean the bible is in any way factual, or relevant, to modern science. It just means it was written several thousan years ago, and the writers were making political or judgemental statements upon the world they lived in.
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Now should ID be taught in Biology class? Of course not. Then again, neither should inconclusive theories of macro evolution and earth origins be preseted in a factual manner. Evolution and ID should be in college level courses where more matured students can see both sides and make up their own minds.
Strangely, more matured students came up with the theory of evolution. These students - now professors of course - have continued to research, develop and the theory. And in all that time, there has never been a break from the mainstream consensus that evolution is the best supported, best evidenced scientific explanation. There has never, AFAIK, been a peer-reviewed paper proposing ID as a solution to any current unknowns.
They can, of course, point out areas of investigation or where the theory is still being developed, and indeed will; it is by asking questions
and not assuming the answers that we learn. Suggesting ID as some form of solution for that is sheer folly; unless you'd care to present scientifically valuable evidence of ID? Anything that qualifies it as science, or factual?
Put it this way.... would it be better to have an answer that may not be 100% correct, but we can show to be getting there (evidence), or to propose an answer which we know cannot be 100% correct, because it is inherently unprovable?
AFAIK the scientific principle of macroevolution have all been tested in the laboratory. and there's the obvious evidence of transitional fossils (mammal jawbones, legged seacow ancestors, and soforth). So.... we have a theory where the scientific principles are known to be true based on the study of microevolution, and we have evidence of prior macroevolution that shows it has happened (especially for Equines). We also have the commonalities of a shared genetic ultimate-ancestor, most strikingly in the sharing of a small group of polymers, enzymes, amino acids, etc across all (known) life.
But, the contention of ID is that.....all that evidence should be ignored or dismissed out of hand, and instead we'll say it's God. No evidence, no basis for even the existence of a supreme diety, let alone one with an interest in life, and certainly no attempt to explain the transitional changes in the fossil record. Unless you want to say God kept 'tweaking' stuff. In which case presumably He made a mistake with the original design - bad form for the omnipotent.
