Keep up the good work Philo, you are doing well.

I think I have run out of puff on this topic, though I would point out to Deuc that I believe my statement, "Everyone, including the scientists, can see the design in biology" remains correct and self evident to most people, if only the observation that everything works so amazingly well (yes, I know about death and decay but that's another story for another day), and the more amazingly so, as the sheer complexity and inter-relatedness of life becomes clearer

So would a cloned human go to heaven?

Spendo,
I admire your persistence in the face of overwhelming denial. That ID is not science is the simple statement of this article. That it is more a philosophy/ideology is all that you (and others) are saying.

I think Yng has the right idea. She (?) can question the science of evolution but that is different to trying to teach that ID has any basis in fact, rather than faith. It is a simple concept really…

As Peter says (and I do rarely agree with him!), to mix ideology into the science classroom is damaging to both.

Thanks Reason!

Quote Philo: ‘To talk about 2% difference is a nonsense.’
Bad grammar notwithstanding, this is what I said! I was telling you not to take the 2% in such a flat board manner, and now you’re quoting me quoting you as if I brought it up…eek! If you’re trying to browbeat me with circular confusing logic like this, congratulations, you succeeded.

I’m tired of this. Science doesn’t need me to argue on it’s behalf, whether some people accept it or not, the fact is that evolutionary theory is strong and sound is not going to be brought down by quasi-religious pseudo-science any time soon (I only hope I’m not over estimating the average intelligence of the population when I say this). I believe sense and reason will prevail, and science class will remain teaching science.

I have asked this question many times now, and not one anti-evolutionist has touched on it, so I will ask one last time.

The greatest scientific minds have debated and examined every inch of evolutionary theory for over 100 years. Do you really think, in all that time, that every single person would miss some technical flaw that would disprove the theory? (For that matter, do you really think they would have any motive to promote the theory if it were questionable?) Do you really think that all the evidence that supports evolutionary theory is just one big coincidence, that fossils just happen to fit in exactly with what evolution suggests, that genetics coincidently just happen to look like they operate according to evolutionary theory, that related animals only share locational histories and physical features by coincidence? Do you really think a CENTURY of testable, falsifiable evidence, constant scrutiny and analysis was one big ACCIDENT? Do you know what the odds are of that happening?! ASTRONOMICAL.

The end. I’ve said all I want to say on this topic. If you still have doubts about evolution, there’s a massive body of evidence, and www.talkorigins.org will get you started. Or just refer to my previous posts. I’ve been repeating myself for a while now anyway.

I've done my dash here too, David.

Peter made a perfectly valid point on why ID is not a suitable study in the science lab, and there seems to be little controversy about that. It does no credit, though, to blur the sides of the argument with statements such as "[e]veryone, including the scientists, can see the design in biology", since all you are doing is to stretch the word "design" towards "intelligent design" when it doesn't want to go there.

Of course scientists see "design" in nature. By its very definition, any structure contains within it evidence of fitness for purpose, which we have encapsulated in the word "design", whether for buildings, machinery, silicon chips or the eye. To conflate this concept with the implication of "intelligence" is just a little sneaky, when there are perfectly acceptable alternative views embedded in evolution theory.

The topic is an interesting one, since it has recently grown something of a political dimension, in the United States at least. Having spent a while familiarizing myself with the material - which I probably would not otherwise have done - I am still of the opinion that the sum of ID arguments rests in their ability to stretch the language, as you have.

The scope and usefulness of the scientific method need clarification.

The scientific method is the appropriate tool for investigating the physical universe, including cosmology, geology, biology, and ecology. It proceeds by steps involving hypothesis, experiment, and revision or abandonment of the hypothesis. When a hypothesis has substantial supporting evidence and no substantial contradictory evidence, it is promoted to a theory.

The testing of a hypothesis must be done by rigorously objective experiment. The testing and proof must be independent of the values and beliefs of the individual scientist, so that another person can repeat the experiment and achieve the same result. The scientist works rigorously to make sure that his/her own views do not bias the investigation, and that his/her presence as observer does not distort the behaviour of the experiment. This process gives science its objectivity and reliability.

There is no place in the scientific method for teleology, and arguments for a hypothesis based on teleological reasoning are inadmissable. It is inappropriate to teach Intelligent Design within the subject of Science.

This does not mean there is no place for teleology anywhere. It means that this lies outside the area of natural science. The scientific method cannot prove or to disprove the existence of God or the creative activity of God, but this does not mean that there is no room for intelligent thought or debate on the role of God in creation. Science provides a body of information about the natural world. An intelligent person looking at that evidence may properly conclude that there is a thread of intelligent design running through it all. Another intelligent person looking at the same evidence may conclude that there is no pattern to be so explained. These conclusions do not lie in the realm of science but in the realm of philosophy, and bring into play reasoning that is not fully objective but includes the influence of personal experience, cultural background and faith or lack of faith.

Intelligent Design may properly be taught within subjects of philosophy or religion, but does not belong within Science.