Originally posted by ChickenHawk
I cannot produce enough scientific evidence to support the ID theory that would satisfy you. I personaly have had enough life experiences though, to convince me of a devine being and Creator.
As have good portion of the human race. I have never claimed that your conviction is wrong. But I insist that this conviction is NOT a result of science and discussion of it has no place in a
science curriculum - which is entirely concerned with how we explain the
natural universe.
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
On the other hand, you cannot produce positive proof that the universe started with a big bang or that macro evolution has ever occured or is occuring. No missing link has ever been found.
Science can and has produced overwhelming evidence that natural selection, adaptation, and mutation have occurred throughout time and are occuring. Science can and has produced convincing evidence to support predominant hypotheses regarding the origins of the universe, as well as for species origins. (Just because your pseudo fringe-scientists claim otherwise, doesn't mean that a preponderance of evendence doesn't exist that the scientific community accepts).
But what you have done here, once again, is assert a negative to support your claim. Lack of certain specifics in one theory DO NOT lend support to an alternate hypothesis.
Why is it so hard to understand that a negative statement is not scientific evidence?
If you look in your garage and find that your car is not there, you cannot immediately assert that it is on fire in France.
It is fantastically flawed logic to assert that because science has yet to fill in certain details, God MUST have created man in His image.
Again, while it may actually be TRUE that God did, indeed, set forth a chain of events that led to man being created in His image -
there is no possible way to prove this scientifically and therefore the discussion of ID does NOT belong in a science curriculum. A science curriculum should give students the skills and understanding needed to explain our natural universe so that we can grow more and better food, cure disease, build awsome computers to play games on, and generally improve the human condition. It is a disservice to introduce unsubstantiated, supernatural claims as science.
Maybe you want to fly in an airplane made of a composite created by a chemist who substituted divine inspiration for actually testing his formulae, but I prefer to rely on scientists who have been taught from day one how to differentiate scientific rigor from faith-based convictions.
