You may be correct on a few points, but on the other hand, you are also somewhat ignorant of the entire ID argument.
Actually, I'm well-read on it. And I know that it is used almost exclusively by the xer fundies.
And you are certainly ignorant of the scientific process and how we define theory vs definition.
Oh, the irony of that will be shown.
Evolution is a theory. ID is a theory.
No, ID is NOT a theory. ID is a guess. A theory in science is " an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena"
ID in no way fits that description. ID has no tests. ID has no falsifiability. ID is just pseudo-science.
Bill Gates status as a male (as we have defined what it means to be a male) is a physical property of Bill Gates. The location of a bridge is again based on complex set of definitions and assumptions that are not scientifically questioned. However the entire process that led to our current existence is definitely not fully known nor fully documented.
So what? That doesn't mean that it's open to a vote. The facts are what they are, and they all point to evolution.
You would also have to state that "the entire process that leads to gravity is definitely not fully known nor fully documented", so we would have to allow for other ideas.
Somehow, I don't think you'd agree to that
There is insufficient evidence to claim whether evolution was completely responsible for our current state.
We don't see any evidence of a god or aliens or bigfoot or whatnot.
As many point out, there is extensive evidence across all walks of life that evolution is an ongoing process. You simply need to look at fossil samples taken across a span of time to demonstrate this. I don't think too many ID scientists find it possible to deny evolution entirely.
You'd be amazed. They accept it only insofar as they want to be taken somewhat seriously.
At the same time, there is no complete evidence documenting the entire evolution of all life forms starting at some premordial form. Consequently, it is impossible to say for a fact that evolution was the only factor bringing us to where we are today. And consequently, ID remains a theory that is is nearly impossible to prove incorrect.
It's irrelevant that we don't have all of the facts and evidence just yet. That also doesn't mean that ID is a theory, nor that it is some sort of valid alternative.
I'm sure that most (but certainly not all) ID advocates are in some way or another religious, however there are notable differences from the literalist interpretation you assume. First, ID does not claim that the world was created in 7 days.
Most of them do, actually. They just couch it in pseudo-scientific terms.
Nor does it deny the existence of evolution as would a literalist.
Again, they accept it insofar as they want to be taken seriously
It merely tries to explain certain "irreducible complexities" that exist in nature that would have been formidable if not impossible for evolution to create on its own.
i.e. argument from personal incredulity leading to "goddidit".
Second, there are actually those who believe not that we were created by some God, but rather by some super-intelligent extraterrestrial race as an experiment.
And none of those are lobbying to have their pet idea taught in school
The only point you have been able to clearly argue to me is that you are ignorant, your mind is closed, and you are not a scientist.
Wow--that really makes me rethink my entire existence. You certainly told me. Wow. I'm so stunned. My life has now changed because of your razor-sharp insight. You--the person who doesn't know what a theory is in science--tells me that I'm not a scientist. Wow. I'm just amazed.
Actually, evolution is both fact and theory. It is fact in that it has been observed. It is theory in the sense of the explanations for it. It is just like gravity in that respect: gravity is a fact, and we have theories (like Quantum Theory of Gravity) to explain it.
As has been stated by many previously: why don't the anti-science, anti-reason, anti-logic, anti-thought, anti-reality people get it? Their myth is not something that should be taught in a science class.
It doesn't matter how many people believe that there is a god. Doesn't matter how good it makes people feel. Doesn't matter how often they trot out the same refuted-to-death strawmen and blatantly false arguments. Doesn't matter that they can't grasp evolution. Their inabilities mean nothing. Evolution is a fact, and for people to want to have ID taught in "public" schools in any manner other than "ID is simply literalist xer biblical creationism dressed in new clothes in order to attempt to fool people into thinking that it's not really some superstition" is tantamount to pushing for phrenology, astrology, and flat-earthism to be taught. It's just that much junk.
Keep ID in theology, where it belongs. I'm glad that many groups are stepping up to expose the fraud of ID and to keep it from being taught in schools. Truth is not democratic, despite what the ID people push. We don't get to vote that Bill Gates is male or that Douglas Adams wrote HHGTTG or that the Golden Gate Bridge is in California--truth isn't determined that way. But the IDers want people to believe that truth is determined by a political vote.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they are separate concepts.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Has anyone ever created even a single living cell from non-living matter.
That's ABIOGENESIS, not evolution. Learn the difference, chuckles.
Oh, and you might want to know that gravity is a theory, too. Quantum THEORY of Gravity.
Actually, I'm well-read on it. And I know that it is used almost exclusively by the xer fundies.
And you are certainly ignorant of the scientific process and how we define theory vs definition.
Oh, the irony of that will be shown.
Evolution is a theory. ID is a theory.
No, ID is NOT a theory. ID is a guess. A theory in science is " an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena"
ID in no way fits that description. ID has no tests. ID has no falsifiability. ID is just pseudo-science.
Bill Gates status as a male (as we have defined what it means to be a male) is a physical property of Bill Gates. The location of a bridge is again based on complex set of definitions and assumptions that are not scientifically questioned. However the entire process that led to our current existence is definitely not fully known nor fully documented.
So what? That doesn't mean that it's open to a vote. The facts are what they are, and they all point to evolution.
You would also have to state that "the entire process that leads to gravity is definitely not fully known nor fully documented", so we would have to allow for other ideas.
Somehow, I don't think you'd agree to that
There is insufficient evidence to claim whether evolution was completely responsible for our current state.
We don't see any evidence of a god or aliens or bigfoot or whatnot.
As many point out, there is extensive evidence across all walks of life that evolution is an ongoing process. You simply need to look at fossil samples taken across a span of time to demonstrate this. I don't think too many ID scientists find it possible to deny evolution entirely.
You'd be amazed. They accept it only insofar as they want to be taken somewhat seriously.
At the same time, there is no complete evidence documenting the entire evolution of all life forms starting at some premordial form. Consequently, it is impossible to say for a fact that evolution was the only factor bringing us to where we are today. And consequently, ID remains a theory that is is nearly impossible to prove incorrect.
It's irrelevant that we don't have all of the facts and evidence just yet. That also doesn't mean that ID is a theory, nor that it is some sort of valid alternative.
I'm sure that most (but certainly not all) ID advocates are in some way or another religious, however there are notable differences from the literalist interpretation you assume. First, ID does not claim that the world was created in 7 days.
Most of them do, actually. They just couch it in pseudo-scientific terms.
Nor does it deny the existence of evolution as would a literalist.
Again, they accept it insofar as they want to be taken seriously
It merely tries to explain certain "irreducible complexities" that exist in nature that would have been formidable if not impossible for evolution to create on its own.
i.e. argument from personal incredulity leading to "goddidit".
Second, there are actually those who believe not that we were created by some God, but rather by some super-intelligent extraterrestrial race as an experiment.
And none of those are lobbying to have their pet idea taught in school
The only point you have been able to clearly argue to me is that you are ignorant, your mind is closed, and you are not a scientist.
Wow--that really makes me rethink my entire existence. You certainly told me. Wow. I'm so stunned. My life has now changed because of your razor-sharp insight. You--the person who doesn't know what a theory is in science--tells me that I'm not a scientist. Wow. I'm just amazed.
Actually, evolution is both fact and theory. It is fact in that it has been observed. It is theory in the sense of the explanations for it. It is just like gravity in that respect: gravity is a fact, and we have theories (like Quantum Theory of Gravity) to explain it.
It doesn't matter how many people believe that there is a god. Doesn't matter how good it makes people feel. Doesn't matter how often they trot out the same refuted-to-death strawmen and blatantly false arguments. Doesn't matter that they can't grasp evolution. Their inabilities mean nothing. Evolution is a fact, and for people to want to have ID taught in "public" schools in any manner other than "ID is simply literalist xer biblical creationism dressed in new clothes in order to attempt to fool people into thinking that it's not really some superstition" is tantamount to pushing for phrenology, astrology, and flat-earthism to be taught. It's just that much junk.
Keep ID in theology, where it belongs. I'm glad that many groups are stepping up to expose the fraud of ID and to keep it from being taught in schools. Truth is not democratic, despite what the ID people push. We don't get to vote that Bill Gates is male or that Douglas Adams wrote HHGTTG or that the Golden Gate Bridge is in California--truth isn't determined that way. But the IDers want people to believe that truth is determined by a political vote.
They are sorely mistaken.