Philo
How can evolution be atheistic when MANY scientists are religios?
How can evolution be dogmatic when it has responded to evidence by raising up views counter to it's original hypothesis?
Ditto fixed ideas.
I noticed you left out My points on Occam's Razor & peer review philo. Could that be because even you recognise that ID does not use these?
Evolution has produced, & continues to produce, benefits to the community. What will ID produce if we adopt it except a warm fuzzy feeling?
Finally the theory of evolution possesses the ability to predict & is falsifiable. ID is neither of these things.
But you knew all these from previous posts. So I will ask you one last time. What would you accept as evidence that evolution is correct & you are wrong? I don't believe you will ever answer that question though I've asked it many, many times. Are you so afraid that I'd be able to present whatever evidence you asked for? Doesn't that very thought suggest you might be wrong?
Just something to meditate upon :D

As ID is orientated to thought, with no material basis, then it should be acceptable to include all thought as having equal relationship to reality and truth.

Then the most glaring example of evolution would be science itself, which has and continues to evolve. Evolution is a progressive change which constantly adapts to its requirements. ID is set, permanent and unmovable in its hypothesis. This makes it false, nothing in existence we know of, stays the same, (except the religious). It changes state or combines to change state, giving rise to evolving change and not static repetition.

It is easy to see the veracity of the ID supporters. Their beleifs are so shaky and lacking in substance, they have to resort to whatever their fanciful minds can, in an attempt to convince themselves that there is substance in their illusions. In doing that, they show how lacking in ethics and credibility they are.

As an example, we have the miraculous broken arm, healed by a zing. Then we have their unsubstantiated claims, that when questioned, are ignored or sidetracked in an attempt to change the subject. You always know where they really come from when they resort to cheating in an attempt to justify their irrationality.

Most posters adhere to the rules of the forum, I have noticed that some do what they can to circumvent the rules, to push themselves upon other, in whatever way they can. One ID proponent constantly attacks others as pushing their philosophies, to counter their own inadequacies, even though they have no idea of what others philosophies are.

That person circumvented the forum rules by posting their 3rd comment on this thread in 24hrs, using another name. Now thats what I call ethics. A good example of the veracity and credibility of the ID proponents and to what depth they will stoop to push their enslaved egos onto others. It wouldn't be so bad if they actually had something of merit to say, but their history and ability to answer questions on any thread, show, the shallowness and emptiness of their understanding.

Response to Grey:
If you’re summarising or extrapolating from my views do not put them in quotes. Misquoting is prima facie evidence of misrepresentation and expect that I will correct the record, especially when it was picked up in another post. If you make an issue over it, I am right to expose the misquoting directly.

Your ability to conduct honest debate is markedly inferior to others in this forum, both sides. Dishonestly does get me flustered. To pick me up on the precise definition of “nobody else” is fair enough, but nothing more than a colloquial error. Another unintended mistake saying “unasked question” (17/10). It should have read:

Grey says (quote 27/10) “Asking a question before I answer is hardly declining to answer”. Itsnoteasybeing (24/10) asks “[What are] some of the predictions...? as did Deuc. Grey’s response is “Will it matter to anyone if there are predictions...?” (25/10)

Well?

This also nullifies your misrepresentation claim (27/10.) Having raised the matter, it’s referenced in my summary and these questions ask for detail. So when you say “Creation Science has made predictions that have been borne out”(24/10) instead of crying “misrepresentation”, stop complaining and give us the detail. Some “science educator” you are (Grey 25/10).

All I know about is one creationist prediction, which only creationists say was borne out. The idea is based on God turning water into planets, but shows only that magnetic field strength of a planet is broadly relative to its size. And the claim of superiority is only for Uranus.

My conclusion is this: If we take this prediction seriously and teach it in our science classrooms, teachers must explain how this is evidence that universe is < 10,000 years old. That would mean fossils, sediment and volcanic rock were built into the earth at the time of its creation. From there explain that our scientific understanding of light and the wider universe is entirely false. From there, let most of physics and geology fall like a house made of cards.

BTW: Now Grey has broken forum rules by posting 3 times in 2 hours.

Alchemist

X-rays taken at Port Morseby Hospital, but sent back to Australia with me, lost in the 'RAAF' hospital system.... so, nothing to show you.
As for 'post' 'healing' Xrays.. don't have any, I was so overwhelmed with what had happened, the last thing I was contemplating was needing to 'prove' it to a bloke(?) named "Alchemist" 30 yrs later :)

Big Fish, the power of the mind ? err.. would your are to elaborate on that pls ? All I can think of is:
1/ Nothing had changed by my own personal perception of the event.
2/ Something changed, but as to 'how' well... perhaps I was halucinating.
3/ Ah.."It was hypnosis" :).....just took the pain away.
4/ We suddenly tapped into 'cosmic energy' and zappo... a done deal.

Please add to the list as you feel led :)

Personally, I prefer 'once I was blind, but now I see' kind of thing, its not exactly rocket science.

But lets not labor this, I don't mention it much because of the types of reactions which predictably occurred here. My faith is founded on the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus, well attested by history.
I wish you guys would come up with something substantial rather than outmoded and outdated 'Christianity bashing' stuff :)

Speaking about 'bashing' I wish this important thread had not degenerated into a kind of slanging match where some of us are very eager to 'win the argument'. We won't and can't, but both poles should recognize that the other has something to say, and all things have a place.

It seems the 'atheistic' science mob are desperate to show ID has no place in the science class room, though I feel it might be beneficial to a well rounded education as 'one' theory on the apparent irreducable complexity of organisms. C'mon, just a word or 2, maybe mention Behe's name :)

I'm more concerned that Creation itself is brought into philosophy/civics classes, and yes, along with some other ideas is ok too.
In all, its truly gratifying that we can all exchange views here.

About “Christian bashing” and the “X-Rays”:

I think David Boaz has been quite brave to talk about his personal story regarding prayer and the healing of his arm. He would have known that this would have been greeted with scepticism.

I am happy to take his story at face value. I think its rather poor science to be investigating the power of pray, just as I’m sure that Boaz would still encourage people to seek medical attention if they are hurt. At the very least, the prayer would have given comfort to Boaz’s friends and family at the time. It wouldn’t have done him further harm.

The arguments against ID being taught in science classroom is not Christian Bashing and the idea that science is anti-religious is as false as the idea that science is religion. I agree with St Augustine (see my post 28/10) that nonsense harms Christianity. I was quite surprised to find that. On the other side I strongly believe anyone arguing against ID as science should maintain his or her respect for religious belief.

Furthermore, ID proponents are perfectly free to continue to investigate their ideas. Limiting the scope of the science curriculum to science is not a form of censorship. Creationism makes for a good debate in English class or a HSC General Studies class.

Regarding Boaz’s “well rounded education”, during high school my science class began with an outline of Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired traits.)

About protein and design:

1212 says “multiple steps would of needed to evloved all at once” (28/10). This does not make intelligent design valid as a scientific theory for all the reasons explained in previous posts, especially letting a theory be falsifiable.

Imagine, if you will, a clouds appearing like painted streaks such as in this great photo(http://australiasevereweather.com/photography/photos/2000/0530mb01.jpg).

Ask yourself, how do all those bits of cloud line up so nicely for several kilometres across the sky? Is that scientific evidence the wind is an intelligent designer?

Religious fanatics shouldn't use public hospitals. They can have their humors lanced and bled privately. No antibiotics nor access to medicines derived from gene therapies or nuclear medicine. No internal combustion engines or cheap jet star flights either - hitch up your donkeys, if it was good enough for Joseph and Mary. We also need to take back your tellies & DVD's. And mobiles..who needs microwave technology when you've got a direct line to Big Daddy in the Sky!

Those bastions of scientific discovery - Iran, Saudi Arabia and other theocracies are leading the world in avian flu vaccinations and your wife's breast cancer drug has been checked by the Minister for Religion in Karachi?

I didn't realise how many people are scared of dying. No god = no after-life. No reunions with Grandma and Uncle Tony in 'Cloudland'. Only scary dark space vacuum, smashing stars and black holes - too creepy. We want Big Daddy to tell us everything will be ok.

That life in all its amazing varieties and horrendousness exists, isn't enough. Like greedy 4yo's needing constant reassurance that Big Daddy is looking over THEM (narcissistic personality disorder on a grand scale) and more importantly, if your head should go through a windscreen this afternoon after colliding with another vehicle, that this wasn't your only 'go' on the ride. Just line up and have another turn... or stay in Cloudland with Grandma and Great-Grandma(& Great-Great Grandma & GGGG Grandma..Oh.. how lovely! You can visit Whiskers and Spot your childhood pets (and the animals you've eaten too).

Meanwhile, us grown-ups have work to do, making this life the best it can possibly be using the power of the human mind to discover everything single thing about how it works. In 15/20 years they'll be injecting gene therapies for mental retardation & mental illness. The religious gene will be isolated & religious fanaticism can be bred out over time. Evolution will win the argument...the earth is flat y'know.

BTW..as if religious nutters would take a drug - like schizophrenics they enjoy their delusions too much.