On 1/7/2011 11:51 AM, Invisible wrote:

> I've seen a lot of arguments for and against whether ID should be taught
> in schools alongside evolution. For me, these all miss the main point:
> ID is not a scientific theory. It may or may not be correct, but it's
> not testable. Because it doesn't /predict/ anything.

Actually, it does.  It predicts, among other things, that the genetic 
code for organisms may have features of no present use, but which may be 
of use by descendant creatures.  An intelligent designer, especially one 
of the intellect required to design a eukaryotic cell, would have some 
capacity for anticipating future changes to the environment and can 
front-load the genetic code in preparation for this.

Be that as it may, I am against the teaching of life's origins on the 
public dime, because it is a matter of public debate, and is therefore 
incompatible with the principles that underlie a free society.  What 
invariably happens, when the government is allowed this power, is that 
the people who are in the wrong will go running to the government to 
have their view imposed by fiat, and all conflicting views suppressed to 
one degree or another.  At the present moment a person who is skeptical 
that natural selection is sufficient to explain the entirety of 
observable living systems is subject to exclusion from participating in 
scientific and educational endeavors, even when the topic has no bearing 
on the origin of life.  But in times past it was the other way around. 
"But we're not ignorant like they were then."  Actually, it's because of 
a shift in political connections.

As a practical matter, I of course oppose the teaching of views I 
disagree with, but I also oppose the forced teaching of views that I 
agree with, because that breeds resentment--especially if someone gets 
drunk with power and exceeds his authority--and I don't want my views 
getting blamed for some idiot's power trip.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message