God's ahead in Kansas

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Where does evolution assert a beginning? IMO there is no evidence to support any theory on the origin of the universe and evolution is about what happened after.

I think you are correct, C1ay. However,there are others (even several on this site) that contend quite strongly that the evolutionary model is a strong element of support for Naturalistic genesis of life.

ID simply says life is so complex it must have been designed that way. That is not a valid scientific theory in and of itself. Discuss it in philosophy class but not science class.

If ID is taught as one of two opposing theories for origin, neither has much evidenciary support, and the discussion is pretty brief. One could spend an hour(maybe) on the notion of irreducible complexity, and balance that with the probababilistic difficulties facing the ID proponents, but that would be about it. I think it would be fair to have that discussion in a science forum, versus a philosophy class. The detail discussion does not map well to philosophy.

[pgrmdave]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

a contrarian hypothesis that is not at odds with the existing data, just existing philosophy.

Ah, but it is at odds with science, because it brings in outside forces that are untestable. We cannot simply fit any theory to the facts, we need to fit the simplist theory that accurately predicts and accepts all the facts. Intelligent Design brings in an outside force, just like trying to explain gravity as angels pushing things togeather is unscientific, Intelligent Design is unscientific.

[pgrmdave]

theories for origin

Evolution never has been and never will be a theory on origin, but a theory on how the variety of life exists on earth.

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

here I AM again! And i will tell you gently again, (you are STILL in luck) that eventually life or death
will bring you to where you will all KNOW the TRUTH AND THE (((FINAL))) WORD!!!
Please, i mean no offense, but, you see, i was just like many of you; agnostic to almost the point of atheistic/purely scientific thought at more than one time in my life, BUT NEVER AGAIN!

GOD and JESUS ARE REAL! AND WOULD I DIE FOR MY BELIEFS? i am getting almost to that point; but yes i am a sinner and probably would chicken out before the cock crowed!

but i tell you, GOD AND JESUS ARE REAL! AND HEAVEN OR HELL AWAITS!

love and peace,
and,
peace and love,
(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai ---> LOVES !

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Ah, but it is at odds with science, because it brings in outside forces that are untestable....Intelligent Design brings in an outside force... Intelligent Design is unscientific.

I agree with the core of your argument, PGD. Again, the problem is that Naturalism is often inappropriately bound with evolution as a direct philosophical underpinning. This is not science either. Adding ID as a counterbalance to Naturalism is (I think) reasonable. The ID folks will (probably) also argue that there are some ID frameworks that are testable. I am not confident that is true, but I suggest the argument ought to be heard.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Evolution never has been and never will be a theory on origin, but a theory on how the variety of life exists on earth.

I can't speak for the committed Naturalism folks, but I am pretty sure that many of them believe evolution is a theory of origin. I do understand (and agree) with your assertion.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Kirk Gregory Czuhai

GOD and JESUS ARE REAL! AND WOULD I DIE FOR MY BELIEFS? i am getting almost to that point; but yes i am a sinner and probably would chicken out before the cock crowed!...

I appreciate the sentiment, KGC. There are a number of Christians on this site (as well as a number of non-Christian theists). Most participants would prefer if we kept to the topic, rather than shift the focus of discussion to personal salvation or theology. I am the last guy to denigrate your content, but I think it would be reasonable to start a thread on those topics if you are motivated to carry them forward.

[pgrmdave]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I am pretty sure that many of them believe evolution is a theory of origin. I do understand (and agree) with your assertion.

I'm not sure here, are you saying that you agree, and that some people are wrong about what evolution is, or are you saying that evolution is an origin theory?

Originally Posted by Biochemist

The ID folks will (probably) also argue that there are some ID frameworks that are testable.

However, they never offer an explanation of where that intelligence comes from. They simply skirt the fact that it implies a god. Until we can test the inteilligence, and try to look at ID from a scientific testable position rather than a philosophical logical position, then we cannot accept it as science.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Kirk Gregory Czuhai

but i tell you, GOD AND JESUS ARE REAL! AND HEAVEN OR HELL AWAITS!

That may well be your belief but at best it is a leap of faith, there is no science to support that. OTOH, this topic is not really about the claim that god exists or not, only the debate on whether or not any origin of life not substantiated by science belongs in the science class.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

If ID is taught as one of two opposing theories for origin, neither has much evidenciary support, and the discussion is pretty brief. One could spend an hour(maybe) on the notion of irreducible complexity, and balance that with the probababilistic difficulties facing the ID proponents, but that would be about it. I think it would be fair to have that discussion in a science forum, versus a philosophy class. The detail discussion does not map well to philosophy.

And what is the opposing theory? I had evolution in school and we never discussed possible origins. Just because some people want to believe or claim that they think evolution is a theory of origin does not make it so. I do not think that even Darwin claimed that.