Why does every state have to try their own creationism law?

[Seth]

Seth, the feds have nothing to do with it! Facts are distilled into text books and the book publishers run what is taught. It is cheaper to teach proven facts.

As it is, texas and CA dictate book content. The large non East states.

Nonsense. Curricula are set at the state level, but the feds (as in the federal courts, at the behest of some ACLU zealot) interfere whenever someone tries to teach ID or creationism, and there are textbooks out there that contain that information.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You misspelled "misinformation", Seeth.

[Robert_S]

Say, what's the current status of the search for the irreducibly complex these days? There was something about a bacterial flagellum, but that kind of petered out.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Say, what's the current status of the search for the irreducibly complex these days? There was something about a bacterial flagellum, but that kind of petered out.

They stopped flogging that one when they got their ass handed to them by real biologists. Kenneth Miller uses "part of a mouse trap" as a perfectly functional tie clip, albeit not the most fashionable accessory. Irreducibly funny.

[Seth]

When Last Thursdayism can be refuted, then not having a refutation for ID might be relevant.

But the thing is... It ain't science. It makes no testable claims and has the power to explain nothing.

Here's the claim: Long ago, an intelligent being intervened in the development of the earth by seeding the planet with living organic matter. From time to time thereafter, this being stopped by to check on the progress of its science experiment, and it occasionally dabbled with particular species, or with the ecosystem, to guide evolution down particular pathways, which is how human beings came to be.

There's a claim, it's testable, and it explains a lot.

Just because YOU cannot test it at the moment doesn't mean it's not testable, nor does it mean it's not the scientific truth. I can think of two ways immediately to test this hypothesis: Invent a time machine and go back and check to see if there was any dabbling in genetic engineering anywhere on earth ever; or find the intelligent entity that did the dabbling and ask it what was done.

The fact that it might be hard, or even impossible at this moment to do either does not place either fully-scientific methodology into the realm of supernaturism or religion. It just means that science is too ignorant at the moment to figure out how to falsify the hypothesis.

Yours is the religious practice of science. You have this fully religious belief that everything can be explained by "naturalism" by science, which may or may not be true. But you go further by as firmly rejecting forward thinking hypotheses that cannot be falsified with today's knowledge as the Catholic church rejected Copernicus's hypothesis that the earth revolved around the sun.

That you cannot conceive of an intelligent entity vastly more advanced than we are that's capable of manipulating genetic matter here on earth in the past shows nothing more than a poverty of imagination and a religious mindset as narrow-minded as any evangelical zealot's.

[Robert_S]

Say, what's the current status of the search for the irreducibly complex these days? There was something about a bacterial flagellum, but that kind of petered out.

They stopped flogging that one when they got their ass handed to them by real biologists. Kenneth Miller uses "part of a mouse trap" as a perfectly functional tie clip, albeit not the most fashionable accessory. Irreducibly funny.

ID is a religious position on a scientific issue. Plain and simple.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Say, what's the current status of the search for the irreducibly complex these days? There was something about a bacterial flagellum, but that kind of petered out.

They stopped flogging that one when they got their ass handed to them by real biologists. Kenneth Miller uses "part of a mouse trap" as a perfectly functional tie clip, albeit not the most fashionable accessory. Irreducibly funny.

ID is a religious position on a scientific issue. Plain and simple.

Cretinism in a cheap suit.

[Clinton Huxley]

What test would prove ID wrong?

[Robert_S]

Say, what's the current status of the search for the irreducibly complex these days? There was something about a bacterial flagellum, but that kind of petered out.

They stopped flogging that one when they got their ass handed to them by real biologists. Kenneth Miller uses "part of a mouse trap" as a perfectly functional tie clip, albeit not the most fashionable accessory. Irreducibly funny.

ID is a religious position on a scientific issue. Plain and simple.

Cretinism in a cheap suit.

[Seth]

Say, what's the current status of the search for the irreducibly complex these days? There was something about a bacterial flagellum, but that kind of petered out.

They stopped flogging that one when they got their ass handed to them by real biologists. Kenneth Miller uses "part of a mouse trap" as a perfectly functional tie clip, albeit not the most fashionable accessory. Irreducibly funny.

Problem with that little demonstration is that all it did was prove that intelligent design works. The fact that a jet engine and an automobile motor both use 7/16 inch bolts doesn't mean jet engines evolved from automobile engines naturally. They are the product of intelligent design.

Just because a bacterial lancet and a bacterial flagellum contain some of the same protein chains that serve similar functions in both organisms does not prove that a lancet evolved into a flagellum. It's just as likely that both mechanisms were assembled by an intelligent designer using a box of protein parts just like the box of nuts, bolts and screws used to manufacture both jet engines and automobiles.

Until someone can actually demonstrate that a bacterial lancet DOES evolve into a bacterial flagellum, by observing evolution until such an advancement is "naturalistically" observed (no meddling allowed), then the proposition that both are the product of intelligent design still stands as a valid hypothesis. Not the most satisfactory one to scientists who have a bias against the prospect of intelligent design, but it's still a valid scientific hypothesis.

So far, as in Dover, all "science" has done is to speculate that because some of the same protein chains are found in both the lancet and the flagellum, and that because evolution is how organisms change (which is axiomatically discounting ID, which is a logical fallacy called "begging the question"), it must be that one evolved into the other. Unfortunately for the scientific anti-ID bias, human experimentation with genetic manipulation proves that intelligent design can use the same parts-box of protein chains to manufacture different organisms "artificially" as opposed to "naturalistically."

The logical fallacy of the judge in Dover, where he delved into the science (which he was entirely unqualified to do) rather than just ruling on the "dirty hands" of the Dover defendants, which was in and of itself sufficient legal justification to find for the plaintiffs, is the presumption he made, at the suggestion of the "scientists" for the plaintiffs, is that evolution is THE ONLY WAY in which changes in organisms happen. This is a naturalistic bias that prior to the demonstrated ability of humans to manipulate genes to create BT corn, was legitimate. However, since the development of the ability to manipulate genes by humans, "naturalistic" has taken on a whole different meaning, and evolution is NO LONGER the only rational or logical answer for how creatures came to be as they are. Science itself has destroyed it's own anti-ID argument by proving that intelligent design both exists and is capable of shortcutting "naturalistic" evolution to create new organisms literally overnight.

The error of the defendants in Dover was in trying to use ID as a wedge for inserting religion into the schools in the form of a PARTICULAR intelligent designer (the Christian god) rather than approaching the controversy from a purely scientific point of view, as I have done, by not speculating as to the nature or intent of an intelligent designer from a religious perspective, but merely pointing out that human science proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that intelligence can design organisms, and that therefore there is no reason to believe that it is either impossible, or a religious belief, that an intelligence in the deep past might be responsible for the design of life on earth.

Even Dawkins admits this in TGD, he just dismisses the proposition of an extraterrestrial being manipulating life on earth as a grand science experiment because he's uncomfortable with the prospect of being little more than a lab rat in some other being's laboratory experiment. And with that blithe dismissal, he launches into an anti-religious tirade of monumental proportions and small wit and intelligence while ignoring the entirely scientific proposition that he is nothing more than a lab rat in someone else's experiment.

These being the facts, teaching ID in science class is entirely secular, scientific and valid, so long as there is no reference to "God" in the curriculum. The main reason the Dover defendants lost is precisely because they came to the table with dirty hands, and it was proven by substantial documentary evidence that their intention was to wedge Christian creationism into the science classroom.

But, bring ID to the classroom without such an illegal religious agenda, as I have proposed, and it'll likely withstand court scrutiny.

[Robert_S]

Without a religious agenda, why bother with ID?

[Seth]

What test would prove ID wrong?

Demonstrating that intelligence is incapable of manipulating genes or protein chains to create new and different living organisms. Or perhaps proving that intelligence cannot create living organisms out of inorganic chemicals under any circumstances.

Of course, we know that intelligence CAN manipulate genes (though not yet protein chains directly) to "evolve" organisms, specifically as an example, BT corn.

Therefore, the hypothesis that intelligent design of living organisms is possible is strongly supported, and will be confirmed if and when labs currently working on creating entirely artificial living organisms from scratch succeed.

So, the case for intelligent design as a valid scientific possibility is very, very strong.

The only remaining question is whether or not some intelligence actually did engage in intelligent design on earth (or elsewhere, according to the panspermia theory) sometime in the past.

That question we may never find an answer to, but only because of our inability to detect such tampering...unless we decode some of those extra genes in human DNA to say "Made by God."

But the fact that we cannot prove conclusively whether or not intelligent design is responsible for life on earth, or its evolutionary path, does not mean that it is an unscientific hypothesis or that the notion of intelligent design is inherently a religious belief. It's not. It's often misused to support religious belief, but it's not beyond the realm of science that an intelligence exists, or existed, that was capable of manipulating genetic material or creating living organisms (or modifying them) from basic chemicals.

And THAT is a valid scientific theory that needs to be presented right alongside evolution as a potential explanation for the existence and forms of life on earth.

Just because you choose to continue to irrationally conflate it with religious belief doesn't make it unscientific.

[Seth]

Without a religious agenda, why bother with ID?

Because it may be the truth, and there may be an extremely advanced intelligence out there somewhere that is responsible for our existence, and that is a question of science that has more than a little importance.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You used irrationally and religion in the same sentence.

[Robert_S]

Without a religious agenda, why bother with ID?

Because it may be the truth, and there may be an extremely advanced intelligence out there somewhere that is responsible for our existence, and that is a question of science that has more than a little importance.

OK, get together some credible evidence and arguments and make some more coherent claims than the ones made so far. Make it a working theory and then try to get it in a textbook. Good luck!