Evolutionary biologist Richard Dickerson is quoted as stating;

Science is fundamentally a game. It’s a game with one overriding rule:
Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.

To believe that ID proponents alone limit themselves to a philosophical staring point is naive in the extreme.

The Naturalistic view point, I believe was an excellent way to start the science process, it certainly has given us many insights.
It’s when we determine that any explanation is better than considering a design option, when the evidence points to specific design criterea, that Methodological Naturalism alone will fail us.

Science should be the search for the true answers, and it should be wary of limiting itself completely to the ‘Rules of a game’.

It seems to me that many people in this forum, are simply reading other forums of other peoples opinions without looking carefully and objectively at the ID / evolution debate. I sincerely look forward to a leading evolutionary theorist tackle a leading design theorist head on and let us all see where the best arguments may fall, rather than continue to hide behind these forums, magazine articles or newspaper columns. I sincerely look forward to both protagonists points of view without editorial constraints on either side.

I believe we will find that neither will truly satisfy our intellect.

I wonder, could that be due to a philosophical view we hold individually?

So far there is one side arguing only – those milking rednecks while blabbing of creation with different descriptions deployed.

The kids of today are the scientific pioneers of the future.
What they should be taught first and foremost in science class is the fundamentals of science, what is science and what is its purpose, what is the scientific method, how is it used, what is a theory, what's the difference between conjecture and hypothesis, what is observation and evidence, how do you test theories, what is prediction, etc. Faith and beliefs are irrelevant in science.
When the kids are more advanced and get in to more specific fields of science such as biology they should learn what are the leading theories in the field, what are the observable facts that support the theories, what are the tests that have been and can be done, what are the gaps in the theories and some hypothesis that try to explain these gaps. ID might come in here very briefly along with other hypothesis and conjecture.
Most if not all fields of science are by no means completed bodies of knowledge so the emphasis, i think, on teaching science to kids (and grown-ups too) should be on furthering the knowledge in the field and increasing our understanding of this universe that we occupy.

Funny how people who can see through the claims of ID to be a scientifically-based theory can't see the same flaws in other popular theories that are equally invalid scientifically. Even the 'experts' involved can't or, more likely, won't.

For decades, psychiatry was based on the ideas of Freud, Jung, Reich etc. The public was led to believe that these ideas had been based on scientific research and proof. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yet we all went along with it - because the 'experts' told us so.

The Greenhouse Theory is now touted as being based on science and having been scientifically 'proven'. Yet it fails on every basic critieria of what constitutes a scientific theory. Popper would be spinning in his grave. It fundamental flaw is that it simply UNPROVABLE. Or falsifiable, if you prefer.

The same criteria used for rejecting ID should be applied to other belief systems masquerading as science.

By all means teach ID. Let the students be told the eye represents irreducible complexity, and all the other catchphrases. But do it while also teaching abourt, say, rabbit biology - explaining why rabbits have to eats their own faeces, or die. Or why the paper nautilus has a (not often you get to type these words) detachable swimming penis. Then let them make up their minds about an intelligent designer. And would anyone like to hear about the joys of a Lancia Beta coupe? A glorious car, so intelligently designed that replacing a water pump meant dropping the engine. But it attracted lots of attention, and won every traffic light Grand Prix. Wouldn't have minded a HO, though.

G'day all,

Firstly, while school curricula should include discussions about new ideas, controversies, public debates and so forth, when it comes to teach a particular subject matter, only well known, properly established facts should be taught. Teaching "The contoversy" the way creationists want it done would be equivilent to teaching the alternative to the round earth theory is the flat earth theory. Its an alternative to believe in if you wish to do so, but it is clearly not supported by the observable facts and therefore a waste of time to bring up in the class room where teachers often have a hard enough time teaching what they need to teach.

Secondly, while those who say sience and reason are based on belief are right in the absolute sense, they fail to recognise the fact that the whole point of science is to use reason to escape from the limitations of what belief alone can tell us about the world. The project of science is not so much about being right and finding new beliefs to hold on to, but about searching out the reasons for how the universe works. Dogma does occur in science including in the discipline of evolution biology but it doesn't stay around for long because the whole scientific process is designed to weed it out. Scientists believe that the scientific method using reason is the best way to explain natural phenomena and so far that belief has proved to be incredibly well founeded. Consistent and verifiable theories that explain why things are they way they are are constant being produced. The theory of evolution has been subject to this process for over 150 years. For those who understand the evidience, believing in evolution is like believing that the sky is blue (and the same thing, by the way, can now be said about human induced global warming). Believing in creationism, by comparison, is like believing in the tooth fairy.

Cheers

Cam