Spendocrat: ‘These empirically validated predictions [of evolution] present overwhelmingly strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason.’

What is the big deal? All worldviews make predictions that can be tested. Evolution is just one worldview. The Bible provides a worldview that can be stacked up against reality too.

Please don’t just make generalizations. Name one specific prediction you have in mind. Then we can look at how the same evidence can be interpreted through the lens of another worldview. That will let us see which worldview works the best.

Now *that's* fallacious mykah. Specifically a non-sequitur: being closed to evidence in no way follows from a hypothetically well-supported ID not being science. All it means is that ID is not, nor could it ever be, science. If anything, it would be history. My previous posts demonstrate why.

Your original point seemed to be that ID was science, but you can't counter my arguments that it isn't science, so now you seem to have tried to dodge it by claiming I am not open to evidence of ID. (Ie. the ad hominem fallacy-- quoting me out of context in the process.) Or maybe you simply misunderstood as spendocrat said. I am of course, quite open to any evidence but I have yet to see any that stands up to the slightest scrutiny. If you or anyone else has some then they should present it, since it would disprove much of the theory of evolution (though not evolution itself).

MichaelK., I'm guessing you took my "language barrier" comment as an insult, sorry, I didn't mean it that way. But as you can see both enaj and anomie are also having trouble understanding you. Running a spell-checker would have been a good idea, but I don't think 7 mistakes out of about 2000 words is a overly high error rate. Privileged? No more than the average white male. Educated? Well, one degree so far.

spendocrat, any idea what philo's last paragraph was about? Allusions to the fall perhaps?

My conclusions as per the “theory” of ‘Intelligent Design’ are as follows-
-By definition, the only satisfactory evidence for the existence of ’ID’ is the appearance of the designer, at a level that transcends all the religious divisions of human history.
-Mathematical or Statistical models are insufficient at this point in time. Modelling could only be proven by the capacity to predict an ‘outcome’ ie the future. Get to work, mathematicians!
-Philosophically, ID supports predetermanism & negates existentialism. It says that someone(thing) else is in control of our destiny. What we do will have little or no impact on human destiny. We are merely ‘pawns’ – Help me please!
-Its source is upper Christianity, in the structural sense. It is a convenient psychological bridge for Christians who suffer from doubts in faith due to their rational recognition of the process of Natural Selection.
-It deserves no more debate. Its introduction as an educational subject in secular schooling borders on the impossible, due to resistance by science-trained teachers.
Another Gin & Lime, please…

Why not "teach the controversy" by teaching Darwin? Since Darwin in THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES framed his "theory of natural selection" as the alternative to "the theory of special creation," why not have high school biology students read some of Darwin's writings and decide the controversy for themselves?

The real controversy is not just a scientific argument but a moral argument. The American conservatives promoting "intelligent design theory" do so because they are afraid of the morally corrupting effects of Darwinian science. But, in fact, Darwin defended the "moral sense" as rooted in the evolved nature of human beings. Far from subverting morality, Darwin provided a naturalistic explanation of moral experience.

Furthermore, Darwinian science would support almost all of the fundamental principles of conservative social thought--including family values, private property, and limited government. Most importantly, Darwinism would sustain the conservative vision of the imperfectibility of human nature (in contrast to the Left's vision of human perfectibility). That's the argument of my new book DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM. A blogging website for the book can be found at darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com

If it wasn't bad enough having a religio-philosophical debate on the topic, now we have Larry dragging politics into it.

>>The real controversy is not just a scientific argument but a moral argument. The American conservatives promoting "intelligent design theory" do so because...<<

An interesting diversion, though. Larry is saying that while the ID debate is being driven by conservative/Christian ideologies, they really ought to be putting their energies behind Darwinism.

I think we can guarantee low sales for this one, Larry - you have challenged a conservative thought process, which is enormously tough going, and you include the c-word in the title, which renders it automatically unreadable by the lefties. Your audience is thus restricted to fellow-academics whose own books you bought recently, and who are returning the favour. Fortunately, there are probably enough of those around.

I'm not sure how we got here, nearly a hundred posts and still nothing to add to the original article.

What has occurred to me though, is that I don't recall ever being taught "Darwinism" per se. I do recall Darwin's voyage on the Beagle being mentioned, and his work having something to do with turtles, but in truth, his conclusions seemed to be just another way-station on the journey to understanding the broad concepts of evolution. If ID ever is able to gather positive evidence of its theory, and take a genuine scientific stand against the prevailing orthodoxy, I'm sure we will be able to take it in our stride, just as true scientists were able to come to terms with Darwin.

Larry's attempt to divert us into yet another bout of pointless theorizing may or may not succeed, but I think it's time to move on.

Because you believe "only those that know little about it challenge it" I have decided to respond to what you have to say with quotes from people with Ph.D's in various answers of science.
They're all creationists, but I haven't found any non-Creationists against evolution with good stuff on the web.

"Ok, easy questions first, we know the Big Bang happened because the expansion of the universe is measurable and the observable radiation and energy in the universe fits exactly in with what it should be according to Big Bang theory. Next!"

Actually no it doesn't.
John R. Rankin: holds a B.Sc. (Hons) with first class honours in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics from the University of Adelaide, and a postgraduate diploma of computer science from the University of Adelaide. He has taught in tertiary institutions for more than 17 years. The 3rd paragraph onwards is what you are interested in.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/rankin.asp

"But to call evolution just speculation (or philosophical)…well, that’s just plain nuts. It’s science. Seriously."
Wow you've convinced me. Not. Sorry, not enough substance in that sentence to convince me.

"...Give it enough mutations and separate this group of animal from the original, and you’ll end up with a group so mutated from the original, it can be considered a new species."

Not really. This article is by John Safarti. Education B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry (with condensed matter and nuclear physics papers substituted) and Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry), both from Victoria University of Wellington. The title seems broad, but the article responds to what you argue.
"Argument: Some mutations are beneficial" http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp

"Of course there are fossils of transitional species – any species, living or extinct, can be considered a transitional species. What we are now can be considered as the transitional point between what we used to be and whatever we will evolve to in the future. But since we can’t predict the future, we have no way of telling what genetics will prove to be the best adapted for survival, and thus cannot predict in which direction we will evolve."