Maybe we are arguing about 2 belief's that are being challenged. One a materialist belief and the other a belief in God. This is where the real discussion should be on rather then whether ID should be taught as part of science. Science without values can be destructive. So maybe the way forward is to see how God and Science can live together in harmony then be opposed to each other. I can't see any problem here as I am a scientist and I believe in God. Spirituality is reported to be of interest to 80% of the College population and Spirituality is being introduced into curriculums especially in medical schools - 50% of US schools. This maybe the way forward rather then the split that is seen in this discussion. Just a thought.

An odd thing about this debate is that science is characterised as being a search for truth. In reality, science makes no such pretence, because the only way that a scientific theory could be established as "true" is by comparing it with something else (presumably something not scientific) which is known to be.

Science is a search for precise and predictive descriptions, or models, of the way the world works. Its theories are proposed models. They get tested repeatedly. Some work, and are retained, and other fail, and are junked. Those that work provide a short-cut to finding ways of making things that behave as we want them to. We need only look at our modern world to see that this approach has proved to be of immense value. But scientific theories are not the "truth", and nor does science claim that they are.

This makes a nonsense of ID's proponents' attempts to insert ID into the science class room on the grounds that it represents a possible truth about the world. The only discipline that claims to offer such a truth is religion, and religious instruction classes are therefore where ID belongs.

Sylvia.

Mr Behe, his contemporaries and the authors of the Wedge Document would be well pleased to see the heat that this thread has generated.

One of their objectives is to displace the notion of evolution and materialism with a " god made the world and the angels and the saints " kind of cethechism that was beaten into me by the nuns and brothers so very long a go.

It would seem the five year plan of the Discovery Institute is well on track if not ahead of schedule.

But this debate goes much further than merely putting ID up against the concept of evolution it unerpins a world veiw that the old testament, its laws , its customs and practices is the way to go.

The ID propsition is little more than sand thrown in our faces to distract us from the main game, it's a vangaurd at best - dont be fooled by justification of ID - faith is good but it is neither truth, nor science nor based on fac

Grey, I dislike all ideologies that seek to impose their fallacies on others via whatever means they can, including violence. Everyone should have the right to believe what they want, it is when it effects others that the right becomes a wrong and thats religion, a wrong. The history and current approach of religions around the world is evidence enough, to dismiss it is as the rantings of those in the grip of a negative psychological mutation.

Then we get the excuse that humans have free choice to destroy whom or whatever they wish for their own self gratification, without penalty, because their god will forgive them of their sins in the end. So god hasn't a term called responsibility, and I doubt that god has a conscience, as it allows so many demonic acts to be carried out by its followers and in its name.

I am not a scientist, but can you explain how viruses evolve to suit their required breading requirements. But ID would call it mutation, pretty smart mutation, we can't cope with it. Some one said that technology is not evolution, but that it improves, isn't improvement an evolution in itself.

All that religion can come up with is excuses. Blame it on others, we are not to blame, its everyone else. Typical of the inept. Don't pray for me Grey, there are enough of you praying as it is and look at the world as a result of that, very positive response from your god. If ID and religion were true, then they would be expressing it as their god supposedly wants, rather than as they do now, but its not your fault is it, its others.

When they are confronted by the complete hypocrisy of their beliefs, or the historical evidence that shows what they really are, the religious disappear. That is most notable with the muslims at the moment, they say something, are questioned, and they disappear completely, the christians just try to avoid it or go to another thread to repeat themselves with the same result, more failures to explain.

Pericles – I have no idea what you are talking about. If you bothered to check the gallup poll of October 13, you would see the question asking “Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings” to which respondents answered 53% for creation, 31% for God guided evolution. Both of these are consistent with ID. Perhaps you shouldn’t be throwing out unsupported accusations if you want other people to take you seriously.

DavidLatimer – “I am misquoted in Grey’s post of 25/10/05 10:52am” Still continuing with assertions but not arguments I see.

Re: Pax6. I am claiming that the original Ad Hoc explanation of convergent evolution in the eye of human’s and octopi was changed on the basis of findings about the pax6 gene to another Ad Hoc explanation. The article clearly documents these changes, although they authors are oblivious to the ad hoc nature, proceeding on the assumption of common descent evolution being true (Begging the question). The Ad Hoc nature of these explanations quite clearly shows them to be pseudo-scientific. As Karl Popper in his autobiography said, common descent evolution is not falsifiable, but a metaphysical framework for other theories.

If you want to talk about Fig4, please simply point out which organism is the common ancestor from which octopi and humans got the pax6 gene and the evidence of it. I.e. What other evidence is there that a common ancestor had the pax6 gene other than that is required to explain current findings that were not expected? Notice also how the common ancestors between the different creatures are arbitrary in this diagram. As all of them have less genes than the octopi related to camera development (and having less is an artefact of their method) it is possible to construct a tree with almost any values.

Your appealing to authority about whether they know how to do science is just another logical fallacy.

“It is obviously accepted that creationism is not falsifiable”. More unsupported assertions. Obviously, according to the survey mentioned above, your assertion is false.

When a scientist says that they believe a scientific theory this is not the same sort of belief that a religious person holds in their creator.

Believing in a scientific theory means that the theory holds up to a number of criteria, that there is evidence for the theory. The Theory of Evolution does this so scientists believe it to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Scientific_method

Many People, including scientists, have a belief in God, but this is not the same type of belief as a scientist has in a theory. Most believers don’t go around trying to prove the Theory of God, and try to back it up with physical evidence. They have faith that their belief is true. They don’t need or require proof of their creator like a scientist requires proof to believe that a theory holds to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Because we are talking about two types of belief it is possible for scientists to be religious and religious people accept scientific theory. Two separate systems of belief which say little about each other cause no conflict.

The problem comes where religious people try to use science to support their belief systems or atheists who try to use science to disprove people’s belief in God. To put it mildly both groups are using the wrong tool for the job.

ID is the latest attempt by some fundamental Christians to justify their religious belief via science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

As I touched on earlier another misunderstanding in this forum has been the use of the term theory. The scientific use of the term, as in the Theory of Evolution, differs markedly from its common usage. I quote:
“There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Characteristics

So the Theory of Evolution is not just speculation or conjecture, “just a theory” as one poster wrote, but a large body of knowledge backed by evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution