On 4/17/2011 2:21 PM, andrel wrote:
> 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.
>
>
There are a few teachers that have done that, as I understand, most of 
them college level though. The ID people, for some reason, haven't been 
at all happy with the few they found doing it. lol But, heh, what do you 
expect when some moron babbled "ontological depth", and then can't show 
you how to "messure" it on a pencil, never mind an organism. ;)

Post a reply to this message