On 14-4-2011 21:52, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> You've got to admit, when you read about stuff like people believing
> that ID is real science, it does make you wonder what kind of people
> live there.

If you take ID to be the idea that some protein(complexe)s can not have 
been evolved from earlier proteins, then that is a testable hypothesis. 
Stating and researching that idea was real science.

It turns out that all proposed systems were proven to be very easily 
evolvable from known components with no intermediate non-functional 
systems. All that is left now is the idea that such proteins might 
exist, but haven't been found yet. IMO the *search* for such unevolvable 
systems is still science. Though science that is so unlikely to be 
successful that no public money should be used to fund it. If a wealthy 
person want to support it, that should be OK and results should be 
published in the usual way.
However *teaching* it in a classroom as an alternative hypothesis 
against the theory of evolution is not science (education). Simply 
because the theory as it stands was proven wrong.

BTW would dissecting the cases brought forward by Behe at al. count as 
spending time on ID? Because that would be an ideal way to teach 
students how real science works.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message