No one argues change, we argue the leap of faith that it will take you all the way from molecules to man.
Which is precisely what Judge Jones did. He made no new laws. The existing laws said that it is illegal to teach religion in a science class. He determined that ID was religion, not science, and hence it was illegal to teach it in a science class.
Both sides in the case asked the judge to rule on whether ID was science (and hence allowed in classes) or religion (and hence not allowed). Both sides presented their evidence and the judge decided, ans both sides had requested him to. For his decision, see Whether ID is Science.
It was a judges opinion. The rebuttals are worth reading too.
All science theories are at base established by consensus among scientists, informed by the evidence.
False. You are being lied to by creationist sources. You are being lied to over and over again. Why do you believe sources that repeatedly lie to you?
Of course not. However, science works on evidence. ID has put forward a hypothesis. Normally the next stage in science is to develop predictions from that hypothesis. Then the predictions are tested by experiments.
Discussion is not silenced. This is the age of the internet, and there are online ID journals, which publish ID papers. So far those papers appear to be unimpressive, but that might change. A lot of the ID papers are not actually supporting ID with evidence, they are more critiques of evolution. You cannot build a new theory by merely critiquing the old. You actually need to have predictions, and experiments to show that those predictions were correct.
Truth is what we are after.
My point was that the idea of such a thing as a creator with a set design or watching over a process isn’t necessary.
As Aquinas wrote: we have a bow, arrow, archer and target. Without the archer, the bow, arrow and target are useless. It would be like a driverless car “knowing” how to cross the country, surviving multiple crashes, and morphing into something different than what it was when it started.
I think there’s a real question of the judge understanding the facts as presented, and you are right, there are different flavors of ID but it had to be legally condemned. What does that mean? It means it was a threat that had to be stopped. Darwin forbid that people would start thinking that life that looks designed was, in fact, designed.
I would like to expand on your animation analogy. Having a full knowledge of the workings of creating things in 3D rendering, where an object can be created and viewed from every angle, think of the bones of an ape and a human. If I put 3D renders of both side to side, I would only have to make some changes in terms of skeletal structure to turn an ape design into a human. Any creature with a head, upper and lower abdomen, and four limbs would fall under the same “body plan.” I could use this basic template to create a great many variations of this plan. If I could manipulate DNA, I could change the codes to enlarge, shrink or modify certain parts. And the same basic template would still be obvious. Man is not just another animal. He alone can be in communion with God and know Him personally.
That is correct. Referring to adaptability, take the sugar beet. Grown in less than ideal conditions, it can only yield a relatively small amount of sugar. Grown under ideal conditions it can yield as much as 60%. The same with people who grow up malnourished and those who do not. Of course, there are limits, but I think adaptability is often overlooked.
But that is not reproducible nor can it be demonstrated. I have read books that were very well written but the conclusions boiled down to speculation as opposed to a collection of facts leading to a reasonable conclusion.
You miss the point. Judges are not scientists. They are limited in that regard. I could attend lecture after lecture but still not comprehend things properly. An abridgement of thought by legal means is wrong, just because the sacred public classroom might be violated? What’s next? Police searches of all materials carried by all students before they enter public schools? And if ID or Creationist materials are found, then what? Fines? Jail time? Honestly.No. A judge deciding what the law allowed to be taught in a public school science class.
A judge deciding what is legal and what isn’t. What a novel concept.
rossum
Galapágos finches have the built-in ability to change beak size, which does not fall under evolution. Bacteria have the built-in ability for horizontal gene transfer to prevent death or injury after contact with a harmful substance. To me it is clear, natural always implies a non-God related process, which is the preferred answer for some.
Regarding your last sentence, it is reworded and repeated here constantly. For non-theists, it must be preached daily. It is a pillar of the worldview.
That is the primary reason for countless threads like this. It is dogma. And, if necessary, upheld by legal fiat. Open inquiry by those with the necessary knowledge and reasoning skills is simply not allowed. Strangely, when brute force or fiat does not work, the alternative is anonymous people calling others names, discarding cogent answers and thinking and obfuscating the issues raised by a blanket of emotion. In effect, smothering any “fires” of dissent.
