Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Steve Peterson wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Steve Peterson wrote:



As an exercise for the class, consider the case for ID research and
report
back where it falls short.

Steve

With the proviso that I am still trying to understand the breadth of
ID's claims...

You said:


Further explanation of a scientific theory
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a
hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is
much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains
all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be
tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible,
because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead,
theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they
are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

OK. If I understand the IDers here is where they claim to want to
interact
with current scientific theory:

1) Philosophically: a) Current science proceeds from the materialist-
mechanical view of nature. i.e., That no First and/or Sustaining
Intelligent
Cause is necessary to the understanding of Nature as we observe it.
b) IDers *claim* that this presumption is incorrect (and they can't
prove it,
but then again, you can't prove the materialist supposition either) and
this
leads to incorrect conclusions about what we observe.

2) Empirically: They *claim* to justify 1b) on the grounds of what
science
has already observed. To whit, that we see things in nature that are
"irreducably complex" - i.e. That could not have evolved because their
predecessor forms could not have survived long enough to evolve.
Irreducable complexity is a hypothesis because it can be falsified
(at least when directed at a particular organism or biosystem) by
demonstrating
a less complex form that lead to the thing claimed to be "irreducable".

BUT - and this may be my lack of understanding - what I am not yet
clear
on is just *how* they propose to do experiments to verify this.

Still reading ...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/


Nonetheless, without any verification, they think that ID should be taught
in school as an equal to evolution by natural selection. If they can, in

I understand your point.


fact, verify something with these as yet unknown experiments, then it will
be time to add ID to the science curriculum. In the meantime, "teach the
controversy" is a red herring. Teach science in science classes - teach
evolution.

"Teach the controversy" is very much in the spirit of unresolved Science though.
There are pleny of open questions about the current inter-species evolution
model ... and there is still controvery there, but it is taught nonetheless.


In my scince classes it was settled controversies that were taught,
so even if one were to (mitakenly) suppose that there were an ID
controversy in science, that would not be something to be taught.
The settled controversy between slow mutation and natural selection
and its priciple competing theory, transmutiaon, was taught when
I was in school.

Would you consider an 'ID theory' of mathematics?

--

FF