Sigh. The question I ask myself is do I have time to argue the same thing with a new person.
Faith doesn't mean suspending our logical faculties, or believing in things that are patently false.
Apparently though faith isnt enough for these religious types in this case because they need to pretend their religious views are scientifically supportable
If anything, the evolution curriculum in schools and the mindset among scientists is far more faith then science. We teach unproven conjecture as truth, employ circular reasoning to reach conclusions, utilize known to be faulty methodology, and make colossal assumptions about things we can't prove because we didn't watch them happen.
"Prove", you keep using that word. I dont think it means what you think it means.
We cant observe anything in forensic science in the same way either, but its still science. FYI, all science is theory even science we do observe with our own eyes.
Then when something comes along that poses a serious problem for our mindset, we gloss over it or bend ourselves backwards making the theory work without requiring the intervention of a deity.
Then provide a good reason why we should assume a supernatural explanation.
And that's why evolution isn't really science: It refuses from the start to acknowledge the possibility of more then mere physical reality, even if such a possibility is more likely then the alternative.
Thats not just Evolution, thats the case with all of science. Science cant start with the assumption there is more than "physical reality" if it has no reason to presume it.
When you know the conclusion before you start, how is that not faith? True objective reason precludes rejecting potential conclusions out of hand.
Very true but thats the case for religion and why ID and Creationism isnt science.
I don't think instruction in ID should be a mandatory part of the classroom, but teaching the arguments against Darwinism should be.
And what arguments would that be? Im all for that if it were true, but arguments IDists and Creationists put forward are usually not only false but dishonest misrepresentations and usually completely wrong about damned near everything.
All too often groups of scientists campaign against curriculum that merely detailed problems with Darwinian evolutionary theory, without mentioning ID at all. Sounds an awful lot like religious behavior on their part.
ID is just way to get Creationism into class without calling it Creationism, as they knew they couldnt win another court case. The Discovery Institute even used a Creationist text book and slowly changed all the references from creator to designer over several years. Thats what Pandas to People became. They didnt even bother to use new arguments. I dont think theres any new argument that wasnt just a rehashed version Creationists hadent been using for decades. After the Dover trial which ruled that you couldnt teach ID as it wasnt scientific, Dr Kenneth Miller said they now want to try just emphasising the "problems" of evolution rather than mentioning ID at all! Its just a new tactic, but it all comes from the same dishonest origin.
Calling ID "bunk" because "Scientific Journals" have published articles that claim to "disprove" their ideas is a lot like suggesting Louis Pasteur was crazy because all the other doctors didn't believe in germs and said as much.
Pasteur had real scientific evidence which is why they had to accept it, same with every scientific theory. ID has no scientific evidence. Prof Behe admitted in the Dover trial that ID is a scientific theory like Astrology was, when asked to explain his definiton of a scientific theory.
Ed
