The notion that natural selection is not a scientific theory because it isn’t testable is incorrect. The theory is testable and explains the evidence. The theory is directly or indirectly applicable in all biological fields of research.

The straightforward example of this evidence and testing is the concept of resistance to pesticides. Natural selection provides a direct explanation. Creationism does not.

The clearest example of ongoing testing is the various genome projects. These continue to show that DNA is modified along established branches of the evolutionary tree and doesn’t jump across branches. Prior to our understanding of DNA, similar work was done looking at the migration of species across island chains, however genome evidence provides much stronger and measurable support for a common ancestor.

If valid scientifically, creationism should have predicted that some DNA sequences would be revisited in different species across different branches of the evolutionary tree. For example consider a scorpion and a lizard, both living in a dry environment. Intelligent design may be evident in the same DNA sequence assisting the animal to retain water, but not present in ancestors living in other environments. The design parallel would be genetically modified plants. A metaphoric design parallel would be a new car part found in both motorbikes and trucks. Creationists are yet to establish any evidence of this sort.

I looked over the original research on Pax6 (http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/8/1555) as Grey’s post refers only to a blog. The research is evidence of the genuine work done in testing and understanding the evolutionary process. The blog comes to an unwarranted conclusion as illustrated here: http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/8/1555/FIG4.

I don’t agree the truth will be found through the unscientific debate in these posts. Nor do I agree that I have been dishonest in my summary of past posts. They are referenced so that they can be readily verified. Grey’s post says “Predictions such as plate techtonics, magnetic field strength of other planets and that the universe had a beginning are all predictions of creation science” and I summarised this as “plate tectonics and planetary magnetic fields were predictions of creation science (Grey)”

Great debate. I love it when Christians and non-Christians alike - be they Muslims or agnostics - gently suggest that we should teach another theory on top of Darwin's anti-aboriginal theory of life. Good for them. Plus, isn't it funny how militant atheists manifest when people suggest that there are a few flaws in their own theories?

Yes, we all know how Bible-believing types are a threat to humanity. If only those silly Christians - say, Sir Issac Newtown, for example -didn't believe in God. How dare he shape modern history and beleive in Christ? And how dare Sir Ernst Chain, F.R.S., Nobel prize winner for penicillin, reject evolution. I mean he should be censored too.

And another thing: This isn't RED RUSSIA. Schools should teach alternative theories. Get over it.

Grey, my apologies if you have already provided this, but this is a long thread to wade through, and the arguments on both sides still haven't moved an inch towards - or away from - each other...

What is your source for this statement?

>>Actually kenny, over 80% of the american population believe that ID is correct.<<

I'm guessing USA Today, but I could be wrong.

benji, be a bit carefull mate.

you might be interested to know that RED RUSSIA also rejected evolution by natural selection in favour of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko's version of lamarkianism, as approved by stalin. in their attempt to implement Lysenko's principals they effectivly destroyed their agriculture, biology and medical industrys, leading to fammine and major health problems

Although I'm sure many who claim that the desire to teach only science in science classes is an act of censorship would quickly be revealed as hypocrites if we suggested alternative moral systems and lifestyles be taught in schools, I will talk about one of the few good statements in the article:

"Those who are serious about finding truth can't afford to dismiss any reasonable proposal to find it and they should not embrace any unreasonable proposal."
It *isn't* reasonable to tell kids (who aren't even involved in scientific research) about an unfounded pseudo-hypothesis, thereby implying it is a sensible alternative. Especially not if that involves the standard misrepresentation from ID advocates.

Jose: "Which brings me back again, anyone brave enough to suggest a law preventing the occurrence of a second Big Bang in your back yard this afternoon?"
There's not nearly enough matter/energy in my backyard? Time/space is already spreading?

Grey: "Behe is a scientist working in the field who thinks ID is correct based on the evidence."
It doesn't matter what he thinks, (although even he concedes that ID's use of "theory" would also include astrology) it matters what he can show and he has provided no evidence or arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

"No one hear has any reason to accept your opinion as authoritative or correct, and you have not given any reason for them to do so. The same applies equally to deuc's post of 'basic facts'."
You're right that I haven't given any reasons (in this thread) for accepting those basic points, because anyone with a basic understanding will already know them, and those without can find out fairly easily. If you disagree with a particular point, why don't *you* make an argument for your position. I'm not going to sit here and justify simple concepts unless their validity is sensibly questioned.

These two threads set out much of my reasoning, including what is wrong with ID's irreducible complexity arguments, which you either missed or chose to ignore:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=164
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=167

And I too would like to see what so-called creation science has predicted.

My final post on this topic-
If one cannot see why ID should not be taught in the science classroom, one should improve ones scientific education.
If one is well educated in the scientific disciplines, & wishes to see ID discussed in the science classroom, I ask why?
ID falls into the category of pre-determinism. It is comfortable to believe that our lives are a predetermined plan, that we have an ‘overseer’. It negates social responsibility, that we as individuals are responsible for the past, present & future of the whole. It is a dangerous thing in this regard.