Personal belief is completely irrelevant to what evolution is nor is such personal belief a component of any theory. They can muse all they want and personally believe anything regarding the existence of God. It’s still not part of any scientific theory, by definition.
How is this a problem for a proper understanding of evolution that does not deny God’s causal role?
A proper presentation of evolution will not do any of those nasty things.
So I guess your point is that regardless of whether evolution is true or not, the misuse and misapplication of the theory is so damaging to people’s faith that we should suppress the theory. Is that it?
I am not going to speculate on the answer to that question. But just out of curiosity, why do you think that answer to that question is so important?
Definition of Intelligent Design
What is intelligent design? See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.If one is strictly speaking of science class only observable, repeatable and predictable. Beyond that is moving into philosophy.
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.Who’s “they” as in “they” say it? Your making my point without even knowing it. Is there a part of the “theory” that is different than the “fact”? Why distinguish at all? If evolution was fact, why would you ever need to add the word theory. I might assume you mean when someone says, “the theory is” that such and such. It’s fact when your a believer and want to “sell it” as such. It is theory when pressed or when the term is used to accurately state the position. You never observed a “science facts” tid bit while in school? I thought the young Earthers were the ones believed some incorrect materials were taught at school.
The best physical evidence that the Earth is young is a dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling. The magnetic energy in the field of the Earths dipole magnet. To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phony physics. “Impossible to perform an experiment today” is a phrase that commonly arises in evolutionary circles. Bottom line, from kaos (disarrangedness) came perfect order as matter was arranged. Hard sell.
To your last question, I have read vague promises ranging from “biology will be destroyed” to America will lose its scientific edge and therefore, our enemies will use our lack of belief in the theory against us, and it will cripple science in general.
Check my multiple posts . I have given logic and factual data to support my position. You have avoided my posts and made this claim. Or shockingly, you have given your self over to accepting that even the human brain with 100 million nerve cells interconnected by 10 thousand miles of fibers arranged itself.
You did not answer my question. Let me refresh your memory as to why I asked the question. You said:
Do you stand by what you said or not? If you do stand by what you said then it sounds like you are drawing a distinction between the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution because gravity can be tested by experiments today while evolution can’t. Is that what you meant? If that is what you meant then I draw your attention to the theory that states that magnetic dipole has flipped 180 degrees in the past. That is, if you were around back then the “N” on your compass would have pointed to the south pole, not the north pole. Well, that theory is similar to the theory of evolution on the same grounds that you rejected evolution - namely the grounds that it cannot be tested by experiments today. So do you or do you not put this theory of dipole flipping on the same level as evolution, namely an untestable and unprovable theory?
Is this post for me? I think there is a mistake…
This still doesn’t explain why you think the answer to your question is so important.
I agree with you there. But how does that fact bear on the truth or falsity of evolution?
Sorry, I don.t know how that happened. My apologies, this was directed at another party
So far none of these assumptions has been substantiated by either observation or realistic calculation. I reject macro evolution primarily. Is gravity evident? I draw your attention to that because one (evolution) can be measured against another based on ongoing evidence. Your presentation is not a fair comparison.
Check my multiple posts. I have given logic and factual data to support my position. You have avoided my posts and made this claim. Or shockingly, you have given yourself over to accepting that even the human brain with 100 million nerve cells interconnected by 10 thousand miles of fibers arranged itself. Mixing physics, biology, geology with conjecture does not make evolution science. You are taught to believe it no matter what without observation. Evidence? Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. Random processes do not construct reality, the smallest element, a functional protein or gene is so complex beyond anything imaginable.
All forms are transitional. Everything is in the process of becoming something else.
Wrong. Are you becoming another species? Or, a humanoid becoming another type of humanoid? With that logic do you believe in 5 billion years you should have an additional appendage? Or does evolution know enough to put a cap on things as suggested by some?
The thing is that I’m strongly on the ‘evolution side’, I wouldn’t have wanted my daughters to spend one minute in school on ‘creation science’ or ‘intelligent design’.What would be wrong? You’d be denying your children a proper education. Even if you reject evolution and you teach your kids to reject it, at least they’d properly understand it and be able to more reasonably argue against it. Otherwise you get people blathering on and on and not really getting that nothing they’re saying is accurate or relevant. Case in point: the last 10 pages of this thread.