"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Steve Peterson wrote:

...
... the real debate here
is if ID was applied to the universe we see and study today, when did
that
happen. If ID is only the initiator ... [then] since everything we
observe came after, ... the designer is ... out of the realm of
science. ... if the
designer keeps being involved, ...

That's the crux of the argument I've been carrying on w/ Fletis who
continues to refuse to see the question and dancing around the request
to explain the role of the "I" in ID...
I agree, and I am just trying to corral the arguments that are flying
around. It is a little difficult on a newsgroup to chime in at the right
time to support someone or disagree with someone else. This discussion is
really addressing two issues:
1. Are there things in nature and the body of knowledge that we have now
that cannot be explained by evolution and that can only be explained by the
involvement of an intelligent designer? I don't think there are, given the
status of evolution theory as an ongoing process. Fletis thinks there are,
and has thrown out some unconvincing arguments.
2. If 1 is true, how should we handle it in science education? I don't
think 1 is established, but some people, not only Fletis, think that just
asking the question is enough to justify adding ID to curricula.

I for one am not ready to take something else out of science teaching to
make room for ID, which is still a philosophical or theological question.

Steve