Tano, I do not claim ID is a competing theory to science, I merely recognize (but dont believe) the possibility that if there is a god, God certainly has the capacity to... affect our existance. If there is a god, he may have designed us so intelligently that we could 'devine' some of his "natural laws" in a way beneficial to us. In fact, God may have given us the ability to discover that we did, in fact, evolve from apes, who evolved from ____ who evolved from ___... whom god originally created.

What is this thread all about? Its about deficits in this country regarding the teaching of science. Specifically biology. Specific cause - an opposition to notions of evolution being taught in biology classes, an opposition fueled by christian fundamentalists, most recently under the guise of "intellegent design".

Your contributions have all been based on some notion that ID is a competing theory with evolution. It is not. It refers to a different subject matter (cosmology vs. biology). It is not a scientific theory. It has no place in the biology, or the geology, or the engineering classroom.

If you agree with that, then why havent you said so, given that this what the thread is about.

You have made false claims about ID (its a competing theory), you have made false charges about science (no one claims science, reason, can explain everything), you have willfully confused "faith" in certain revealed facts with "faith" in a process for understanding the world (reason). How are we to guess that underneath all this, you actually agree with the point of the original post - that ID should not be taught in science class?

Steve can defend himself, no doubt, but I would like to point out to you the obvious flaw in your argument.

The issue is not whether ID theories are to be tolerated in our society. The issue is whether these religous theories are to be taught in SCIENCE class.

Obviously not.

But when fundamentalist religous activists try to get religous theories introduced into science class, or even minimally, to pretend that their religous theories are part of a "controversy' wihtin science, then it is entirely fair to point out that these activist are trying to subvert science to religion.

You are a smart man Mr Verdon, but as a writer you are as off-putting as those you regularly belittle. In fact, you use the same tactics you attack Coulter for – acerbic scorn and over the top rhetoric.

I was not promoting, nor even defending the ID “theory,” merely acknowledging that those who do have as much rights to their beliefs as do I. I was pointing out that while I find validity in the evolutionary theory as to why we are, I couldn’t find incontrovertible proof that this is a fact. And thus, I must keep an open mind. And more importantly, I cannot not cavalierly dismiss theories – or opinions – that do not mesh with my worldview. Apparently, you do. The irony is that you are dogmatically indistinguishable from the people you regularly scorn on this site.

As a postscript, I found this illuminating:

…it is pretty clear that their intent is to make science subservient to religion.

In other words, “I know that’s what they believe, but they’re so stupid to believe it.”
I’m guessing that you cant conceive of a universe, the whole universe, embodying the “laws” of science as we mere mortals know, to be the product of an omnipotent deity. And if such a universe existed, science would necessarily be subservient to “religion…” Because, you know… God invented it.

I don’t believe this, Steve, but unlike you, I openly acknowledge my faith in science.

We are not culpable for the religiosity of the Republican Party. I don't think we even have a Creationist who posts here.

Please clarify. Are you an IDer, or an anti-evolutionist?

"The IDers just don’t think totally unguided evolution is the sole cause of our present advancement. "

Evolution is not "totally unguided". Evolution proceeds by species adapting to their environment. The pressures exerted by the environment can be very extreme, leading to a harsh selection of the variation present in any generation. So, if you crave a "guidance" factor, it is there in the process by which the traits and characteristics of organisms are selected to better assure survival in a particular environment. Then the environment changes, and different selective pressures arise. Etc.

Some outside mystical guiding hand is neither required for this explanation, nor is it a testable (scientific) hypothesis.

So whats with the "jackass" comment? My comments to you were simply about your reference to public education - I said nothing about any impossibility of being an evolutionist and religious. I don't see any impossibility there either.

The line that I was responding to: "The problem then isn’t evolutionary theory, but schools funded with tax dollars. Vote libertarian/minarchist."

IF I misunderstood that, then apologies...But it seems to say that you are against funding schools with tax dollars - i.e. public education. IF schools arent funded with tax dollars then what dollars will fund them? All private?

Later you say you are not opposed to public education, just the way it is run. Can I assume therefore that the first comment was just a throwaway line?

Also, I'm not totally opposed to public education, I'm just not happy with the way the current system is run.

RJN,

Steve: You are saying that the theory of gravity is always under the shadow of change, but the theory of evolution is not subject to change.

No, I never wrote nor implied that. In fact, I wrote exactly the opposite when I wrote,

Evolutionary theory is the same. The theory of evolution today is rather different than what Darwin initially proposed. Darwin had no idea about DNA, genetics, and so forth (or maybe an inkling of an idea). Still, his notions of decent with modification and natural selection are still important parts of evolutoinary theory and are at the core of the theory. Is evolutionary theory a “fact”? No. However, it is the case that organisms change–that is evolve. As such evolution is a fact. Any theory that is to displace evolutionary theory has to account for these facts along with the facts of the fossil record, DNA, mutations, speciation, and all the other aspects of the current theory of evolution and explain things the current theory does not and explain those things the current theory does with more parsimony.

The essence of all of these, here, anti ID claims is that nothing can be forseen that would change our present view of evolution, only, theory. Wow! You evolution only guys are wonderful. You have shown us the place to stand from which we can move the earth.

This is false and a misrepresentation of what I've written.

The IDers NEVER say don’t teach evolution. The IDers believe in evolution. The IDers just don’t think totally unguided evolution is the sole cause of our present advancement.

For which the IDers never give any evidence...ever.

The IDers NEVER say don't teach evolution. The IDers believe in evolution. The IDers just don't think totally unguided evolution is the sole cause of our present advancement.

Sorry for implying that you supported Republicans. I guess you are actually even worse (who woulda thunk that possible)! Lets get rid of public education, eh? You want MORE of the type of cretins that we see here now?

No, jackass, I happen to think that one can be both religious as well as believe in evolutionary theory.

Thats right George. Just teach the folk tales of some Middle Eastern tribe from a couple of thousand years ago. Thats where you go to find absolute truth. Then you dont have to bother with anything else. And you get to act like you know something - the most important things! How cool is that?