Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
ID is not any sort of heavily tested theory and there is no way to test its core hypothesis.
Logic, the lack of any better theory, and numerous scientific principles provide some evidence.
There's a much better theory - a (seemingly) statistically unlikely outcome that is nonetheless highly likely to occur a small number of times given an extraordinarily large sample size (the universe). Years, or centuries from now, if we have evidence that life exists on every planet remotely capable of supporting life, then maybe it will be time to re-examine such a theory.
Besides that it's nothing more than repackaged creationism.
Actually ID also, as far as I know, includes theories about alien seeding and whatnot.[/quote]This is the same as the 'evolution' taught in fundamentalist schools. Teach it in grade 5, sit the little kiddies down and say 'now you know that God created the world, and I think you can see how silly this evolution idea is' (all the 10 year olds nod). ID includes the idea that life comes from alien seeding? I don't think so. ID is a theory of origin, and 'alien seeding' simply begs the question of 'where did the aliens come from'. In the end, ID is a proxy for creationism.
Should schools teach about things like ID? Sure. But put it in mythology class where it belongs, not science studies.
I'll agree, so long as the theory of evolution is taught there too. What? You say you won't agree to that? How reasonable of you. :roll:[/quote]Evolution belongs in science class because it's science. Microevolution is not in dispute, and macroevolution is far and away the best explanation currently available for the fossil record. To the extent that it is testable based on as-yet undiscovered 'missing links' there has been consistent support through new discoveries filling in the large gaps in the record. At every stage, evolution is subjected to rigorous testing; the fact that the 'origin of life' is not particularly testable is one reason that a good eolutionary scientist would make no strong statements about origins; we not only 'don't know' we have no way of testing what we think
might be true, therefore it's irresponsible to propose a theory of origins and call it scientific.
ID is a philosophy, and begs the question from start to finish. 'There must be a reason for things to exist as they are'. If that's true, the existence of God is the obvious conclusion. But there's no 'reason' to conclude that it
is true, unless you pre-suppose the existence of God. As such, the theory is untestable unless you can directly prove the existence of God, and you can't; at least at the present time. Untestable hypotheses are not science, and shouldn't be taught in science class.
I can't offer a 'disproof' of the existence of God, but I don't need to - anyone is free to believe that life started in any manner they feel appropriate; at the moment, none of it is really 'scientific'. But statistical, Darwinian evolution still belongs in science class, and ID, while a nifty theological response to evolution, does not.
