YngNLuvnIt – my belated response:

I’ve grabbed a lot of the below from the www.straightdope.com (handy site) discussion on micro v macro evolution, which itself references ‘The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism’ by Stephen Jay Gould.

Your comments suggest you accept microevolution but not macroevolution. Cool, we’re half way there!
Macroevolution is actually the same story as micro, just on a larger scale. Creationists haven’t come up with a reasonable explanation why evolution should stop at the boundary of a species, rather than include the process that changes one species to another over time. Fact is, there’s no such reason. It's all one process.

The evolution of a family is no different in its basic nature, and involves no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The conclusion reached some time ago was that the same principles of adaptive divergence - primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection - going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species--i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life (the ‘mutation’ you argued is, easily pictured as a tiny step in a much bigger journey, in other words, yes, its evolution, just on a smaller scale).

Creationists say there can be variation within kinds but not between kinds. Biologists assert that there has been one history of life: all life has descended from a single common ancestor; therefore one process-evolution-is responsible for the diversity we see.

The truth is there is no magical dividing line between micro and macroevolution. Biological evidence shows that changes within species are caused by the same natural forces that eventually cause differences between species, genera, families, and so on.

So to re-iterate (again): evolution r00lz. No one has come close to providing a decent challenge to it. Ever.

mykah, a nitpick first: SETI etc. look for patterned signals, not simply non-random singals because pulsars etc. aren't random.

Tools of that sort are by definition, something that has been designed and we know that such things exist. Similarly a detective has reason to give significant consideration to an unnatural death because such things have happened before, and the detective would be looking at the immediate cause of the death first in order to determine any grounds for suspicion anyway. We know alien signals will be structured, because that is what makes them signals; my point is that the search is based on knowledge of and evidence for what is sought. ID lacks such evidence and we do not know the suggested means of design.

It is not a scientific theory, as it is neither supported by evidence nor falsifiable. There is no way to demonstrate that design did not take place on some scale, and yes the same is true for the other 3 examples and they are not scientific theories either.

Firstly ID is limited to biological processes (not the universe), but in asking "is what we see in our genes likely to have been designed?" a result/hypothesis is being presumed that is not based on existing observaiton or evidence; unlike scientific theories. If we do try to answer it anyway the answer becomes no, since we have no evidence for it. Why should a science class consider something that is not supported by evidence?

"By asking such a question, I don't suddenly become unscientific in my understanding of how things work,"
Yes actually you do, because hypotheses and descriptions are being made divorced from any observed phenomena. That doesn't mean that the hypotheses are necessarily false though. The detective has observed such phenomena, and is merely testing whether the current death matches the pattern. But he still has no scientific theory because the pattern can't ever be rejected. ID *doesn't* explain how things work, it just says "it was designed by an intelligence".

Dear MichaelK,
You responded to me, and I would like to respond to you, but, I'm afraid I simply don't get what you mean. Could you explain it a little more simply for a plain old mum like me? I actually don't even know whether you agree or disagree. Are you, perhaps, saying that parents may not be the best judges of what is the best education? If you are, I tend to agree, but they are the final arbiters under this govt, apparently.

Who was the designer?

Philo's last post shows he does not understand basic neodarwinian evolutional theory. He’s is describing a mechanism for evolution that was dropped 100 years ago. Try reading a book about evolution written by a knowledgeable person rather then Aig or other such garbage.

To other poster’s the fact is creationism and ID is an attack on science and should be treated as a religious ideology that it is.

I share an opinion that mailing-to-this-forum-rules effectively prevent from prompt responding.

The following is a digest of my replies to messages appeared last 36 hours.

1. To Deuc <..Why should a science class consider something that is not supported by evidence?…
ID *doesn't* explain how things work, it just says "it was designed by an intelligence". >

Lack of evidence is not prove to/of ID of which main purpose as understood was the CREATING neither explaining anything if something, anyway.

And none responded to my previous messages that what is significant evidence itself.

2. To enaj: Parents should decide. Especially those who themselves do not bother to improve their reading and writing as was mentioned above.

And my concerns regarding imposing particular believes on variety of government schools pupils are still omitted.