Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Chat at 1:15 p.m. today about KU and intelligent design

November 29, 2005

Advertisement

Kansas University has come under fire for its proposed classes putting intelligent design under the microscope. How is this playing out on campus and in the Legislature?

Two Journal-World staff members, KU reporter Sophia Maines and Scott Rothschild, the Topeka bureau chief, will take readers' questions and comments during a chat that begins at 1:15 p.m. today. (Submit questions early.)

Maines and Rothschild have been writing recent stories about the reaction on campus and in Topeka to a class to be offered next semester by KU's religious studies department in the wake of the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to change the state's science curriculum guidelines so that they challenge and criticize evolution.

The curriculum changes were pushed through earlier this month by members of the board who are advocates of intelligent design, a belief that the universe was created in a planned manner by an intelligent designer.

Last week, Paul Mirecki, chairman of the KU religion department, announced that he would offer a class next semester, titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design and Creationism."

Originally the title of the class included the words "and other Religious Mythologies," which led to a firestorm of criticism from intelligent design advocates, who didn't like the term mythology associated with Biblical creation.

Mirecki also came under fire when an e-mail he sent to a Yahoo! group about the class ended up in the public domain. In the posting to the Yahoo! group, Mirecki wrote, "the fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as religious studies class under the category 'mythology.'"

KU officials have backed Mirecki and the course. But they have expressed regret about the e-mail. Mirecki issued an apology on Monday.

Comments

DocScott 8 years, 4 months ago

Dear LarryFarma, I must tell you Larry that there is a major flaw in your argument for so-called Irreducilbe Complexity. This is the fact that irreducible complexity at present does not entail irreducible complexity throughout the history of the organism. For example, an arch is held in place by the top "keystone" In effect, the arch is irreducibly complex. However, a scaffolding is used to maintain the arch until the keystone is placed. The scaffolding them "disappears". You seem like an intelligent fellow, thus I won't now offer biological examples of how a seemingly irreducible complex system such as blood coagulation cascade could have evolved with components that disappeared because they were no longer necessary after the system was up and working. It could have happened without Intelligent design and by very well known biochemical mechanisms. I would be glad to educate you about Dr. Dembski's nonsense also. S.D. Mendelson M.D., Ph.D.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 4 months ago

Larry - evolution does not suggest adding components to an existing part. It's not, "Let's take a lizard and add wings and ta-da, it's a bird." Maybe I just don't understand the irreducibly complex theory, but it never has made any sense to me as a counter to evolution.

0

LarryFarma 8 years, 4 months ago

Starhawk -- from your post of 11/30/05 at 2:37 PM <

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 4 months ago

mousetrap, flagellum, blood clotting.....blah, blah... oops, forgot wristwatch. Did I get all of the ID "cut and paste" arguements?

0

StarHawk92 8 years, 4 months ago

Larry,

From your post of November 30, 2005 at 1:08: "all ID should do is just scientifically identify organisms and biological systems that are unlikely to have been developed by evolution"

An example please? What do you consider "irreducible complexity"??

0

StarHawk92 8 years, 4 months ago

Mr_Christopher,

Exactly -- ID will drown Christianity if the fundies keep pushing it with no thought for the future. It's a disaster for them of their own making. Too bad it happened in Kansas; if Georgia had tried harder a few years ago, maybe the implications would be clearer.

0

Mr_Christopher 8 years, 4 months ago

The poster child for ID is irreducible complexity. A tumor cell meets the criteria of irreducible complexity.

Why did the intelligent designer design tumors? Just as importantly, why did he not make little children immune to tumors?

Does the intelligent designer hate children? Why did he create them in the first place if he is only going to design cancers that kill many of them?

Why does the intelligent designer murder children with diseases he obviously created in the first place?

0

wonderhorse 8 years, 4 months ago

Oh, I forgot this part. If you criticize ID, you are a bigot and are persecuting christians.

0

wonderhorse 8 years, 4 months ago

Star

ID is, of course, a completely scientific option to evolution, and has nothing to do with religion. Of course.

0

StarHawk92 8 years, 4 months ago

Larry,

Don't any supporters of ID see the damage they are doing to their own Christian faith??

Someday a Kansas child will ask their parents: "Today, the teacher said that an intelligent force created everything. Billy said that it was Lucifer, because God would not create a world where innocent people die from hurricanes and tsunamis. But you always tell me that God created the world. Which is it: Lucifer created the world, or God created a world that hurts people?"

What do you tell this child? Do you tell the child they should just believe in God and not ask such questions? Is that an education?? Will that be sufficient for a curious child or confuse them even more?

Can you formulate an answer with scientific facts and reasoning and not philosophical retorts or religious affirmations?

Is this a scientific or a religious discussion????

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 4 months ago

I give.... Since you have a different definition of ID than the ID proponents, then there can be no debating theories. ID has nothing to do with a designer?!? It has EVERYTHING to do with a designer!

0

Mr_Christopher 8 years, 4 months ago

where is the link to this chat sposed to happen today?

0

LarryFarma 8 years, 4 months ago

Answer to post of fossilhunter, November 30, 2005 at 12:13 p.m.

LarryFarma's answers marked by <<< >>>

Larry - OK, I'll play... Fact --ID can be, and in fact is supposed to be, just a scientific (some say pseudoscientific) criticism of evolution theory. ***based on the belief that a supernatural being is the designer. <<< The name ID is unfortunate because it implies the existence of a "designer." However, basically all ID should do is just scientifically identify organisms and biological systems that are unlikely to have been developed by evolution (one possible reason for such unlikelihood would be "irreducible complexity"). It is not necessary to speculate about a supernatural designer. >>>

(2) Misconception -- ID is not scientific because it is not "testable" ***ID is not scientific because it can not be proven. We can never deduce who the designer is, therefore we can not deduce that something was designed. It relies upon supernatural interference to happen.<<< The issue of supernatural interference can be ignored. I said that ID may be considered to be just a criticism of evolution theory and need not be a complete explanation for the origin of species. And macro-evolution theory cannot be proven, either>>>

Fact -- Macro-evolution theory is not testable, either -- it is based entirely on circumstantial evidence in fossil records, comparative anatomy, genetics, etc.. ***there is a proponderance of fossil evidence. Whales with legs, feathered reptiles, birds with teeth... <<< It is still just circumstantial evidence. >>>

(3) Misconception -- ID is not scientific because it is neither a "theory" nor a "hypothesis" Fact -- If "theory" is defined as a complete scientific explanation for some observations of nature, and if "hypothesis" is defined as a proposed theory, then it is true that ID is not a theory or a hypothesis. But something can be scientific without being a theory or a hypothesis -- e.g., criticism of a scientific theory can be scientific. ***criticism of a scientific theory without any scientific facts to support that criticism is not science. It is the equivalent of a movie critic. <<< Scientific ID studies are based on observed biological facts. >>>

(4) Misconception -- ID is the only scientific (or pseudoscientific) criticism of evolution theory Fact -- Some other actual or potential criticisms of evolution theory involve -- (1) the propagation of favorable mutations, (2) the mathematical probability of evolution, and (3) co-evolution of two co-dependent organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants (this co-dependence, called "mutualism," might sometimes be a kind of "irreducibly complex design" consisting of two organisms) ***you just completed an arguement in FAVOR of evolution....<<< How is that? The problem of co-evolution, for example, is one of the strongest arguments against evolution theory. I posted a separate message here in which I discuss co-evolution.>>>

0

Mr_Christopher 8 years, 4 months ago

larry, I won't bite either. Your "misconconceptions" and so called "facts" lead me to believe you are seriously misinformed. Your conclusions are probably the result of uncritically accepting Discovery Institute and other ID propaganda.

In view of this I have no desire to debate you nor educate you.

Furthermore the ID "movement" is not a science movement, it is a political one inspired by the desire to inject creationism into public classrooms while attempting to mislead the public into believing evolution is "only a theory" and one that is "in crisis". Neither of those claims are grounded in reality.

Best of luck to you and enjoy your bliss.

0

wendt 8 years, 4 months ago

LarryFarma:

I submit that you are ignorant of the educational background of William A Dembski, Michael J. Behe and John Calvert.

I submit that you are ignorant of education level of the 38 Nobel Prize Winners who signed a protest of the Kansas State Board of Education's actions to include Intelligent Design in the curriculum.

I submit that you are ignorant of Dr. Mirecki's educational background.

I submit that you have not achieved the education level to be able to tell whether or not Intelligent Design / Creationism is actually a science.

I can run outside and yell that "Sauron is dead", but that does not make it real. Your statement that Intelligent Design is a science, merely because you state it, has the exact same validity.

0

Shardwurm 8 years, 4 months ago

You know over the last several months during this whole debate I've noticed a lot of intolerance and a wealth of people posting who must be very miserable in their lives.

This goes for both sides of the argument.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 4 months ago

Larry - OK, I'll play... 1) Misconception -- ID is religious Fact --ID can be, and in fact is supposed to be, just a scientific (some say pseudoscientific) criticism of evolution theory. ***based on the belief that a supernatural being is the designer. I'll give you "pseudoscientific"

(2) Misconception -- ID is not scientific because it is not "testable" ID is not scientific because it can not be proven. We can never deduce who the designer is, therefore we can not deduce that something was designed. It relies upon supernatural interference to happen. Fact -- Macro-evolution theory is not testable, either -- it is based entirely on circumstantial evidence in fossil records, comparative anatomy, genetics, etc.. there is a proponderance of fossil evidence. Whales with legs, feathered reptiles, birds with teeth....

(3) Misconception -- ID is not scientific because it is neither a "theory" nor a "hypothesis" Fact -- If "theory" is defined as a complete scientific explanation for some observations of nature, and if "hypothesis" is defined as a proposed theory, then it is true that ID is not a theory or a hypothesis. But something can be scientific without being a theory or a hypothesis -- e.g., criticism of a scientific theory can be scientific. ***criticism of a scientific theory without any scientific facts to support that criticism is not science. It is the equivalent of a movie critic.

(4) Misconception -- ID is the only scientific (or pseudoscientific) criticism of evolution theory Fact -- Some other actual or potential criticisms of evolution theory involve -- (1) the propagation of favorable mutations, (2) the mathematical probability of evolution, and (3) co-evolution of two co-dependent organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants (this co-dependence, called "mutualism," might sometimes be a kind of "irreducibly complex design" consisting of two organisms ***you just completed an arguement in FAVOR of evolution....

0

Mr_Christopher 8 years, 4 months ago

Also, I appreciate the coverage that LJWorld is giving to the subject at hand but I for one would like to see the writers here demonstrate they actually have an understanding of the subject(s) and not just regurgitating what they read from the newswires or quote local ID/Evo celebrities.

Concerning Intelligent Design and Evolution, I don't see any in depth articles or analysis at LJ World.

Scott and Sophia might enjoy and profit from reading

Intelligent Design http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellig...

Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Creation and Evolution in Public Education (specifically includes recent developments in Kansas) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation...

Cheers!

0

LarryFarma 8 years, 4 months ago

Wendt, Mr. Christopher, et al. -- You are just wasting space here making ad hominem attacks against me because you are frustrated by your inability to find specific flaws in my statements about ID and evolution. This comment area was intended for serious discussion and not for your childish, jealous taunts.
Wendt, you also attacked the credentials of some leading ID proponents. And I suppose Mirecki has outstanding scientific credentials in biology that particularly qualify him to judge the scientific merits of ID.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 4 months ago

wendt - not a prof -- actually into marketing. Just really, really interested in paleontology and study as much as I can.

0

Mr_Christopher 8 years, 4 months ago

Hey Larry since you are so informed on the ID "facts" how about commenting on these ID subjects inspired by the Dishonesty Institute, oops I mean the Discovery Institute?

"The Wedge Strategy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_st...

As you will read the Discovery Institutes stated goals include 1) To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. 1) To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

And give us your educated comments on

"Teach The Controversy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_th...

I look forward to your educated commentary.

0

wendt 8 years, 4 months ago

Fossilhunter:

Thanks for the kind words.

I would like to think that LarryFarma wants to learn but reviewing his posts is leading me to conclude otherwise.

It's a pity. My suspicion is that you are either a KU Professor in Archeology or a grad student of same. He could learn something if he wasn't so occupied with implementing the "Wedge".

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 4 months ago

And wendt knocks it outta here!

0

wendt 8 years, 4 months ago

LarryFarma:

The basic cause of the problem is that conservative Christians are so uninformed as to not know what is science / myth / religion / the Constitution of the country in which they reside.

The basic problem for you, LarryFarma, is that:

Dr. Mirecki knows more about religion than you do,

38 Nobel Prize Winners know more about evolution than John Calvert, and

all the science teachers in the State of Kansas know more about the scientific method than does Connie Morris.

0

LarryFarma 8 years, 4 months ago

I think that the basic cause of the problem was that Mirecki is a megalomaniac who saw himself as a white knight in shining armor who was going to save Kansas from the evil fundies.

0

wendt 8 years, 4 months ago

LarryFarma:

You have much to learn. It's like you haven't read any of the blogs and are starting from scratch.

It's possible that we will educate you and bring you up to speed on this issue but it would be more appropriate for you to take some science classes for a firm foundation on the methodology of science. After that, some courses in biology would be appropriate.

You can even take them at KU and save some drive time.

====

I wouldn't spend too much time defending Intelligent Design / Creationism. The intellectual firepower brought to bear to promote Intelligent Design / Creationism amounts to:

a retired Overland Park KS attorney,

a theologian who has been kicked out of multiple universities for his position on evolution,

a molecular biologist who's defense of Intelligent Design / Creationism in Dover PA got the whole School Board voted out.......

not a lot of intellectual support there at all.

===

There is tons of uninformed conservative Christian political muscle, but intellectually, there's a significant vacuum.

0

Mr_Christopher 8 years, 4 months ago

On Oct 21st the American Enterprise Institute For Public Policy Research hosted a day symposium called "Science Wars Should Schools Teach Intelligent Design?" All of the leading national proponents on both side of the debate gave presentations including the Thomas More Law Center (they defened the Dover School Board).

It was a fascinating discussion. The Discovery Institute once again lied to the public and it was the T More lawyer who busted them in front of everyone.

Any how, for those looking for a deeper than a USA Today understanding of this debate you'll enjoy reading the entire transcipts as well as getting copies of the hand outs that the various speakers provided.

Go here for all the goodies!

http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1169/transcript.asp

0

LarryFarma 8 years, 4 months ago

Answer to post by observer, November 30, 2005 at 7:59 a.m.

Larry. you can't teach ID as a science subject since it has no scientific basis, >>plain and simple it's faith.

Wrong. The scientific concepts of ID -- such as "irreducible complexity" -- can be taught as science.

I know the KU is being discussed both both nation and world wide. I'm getting >>people from all over who I haven't talked to in years e-mailing and calling >>wanting to know what is happening to Kansas.

And yet you wondered why I was interested in KU !! LOL

Guess I'm a little tired of explaining it's caused by a loud vocal minority, it doesn't >>represent the average Kansan.

And the biggest loudmouth of all is Mirecki.

0

LarryFarma 8 years, 4 months ago

Answer to post of fossilhunter, November 30, 2005 at 8:57 a.m.

Larry -

I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts. No one, and I mean no one, has been >>able to argue that ID fits any existing definition of science.

        No one?     I just did!!    And unlike the Kansas school board,  I was able to define ID as scientific without changing the definition of science!!

Guilt by association -- no, these are the statements by the guys that "invented" >>ID. That is the stated goal of ID theorists.

        I don't give a damn what their goals are.     I only care what my goals are.    Are you beginning to get the idea?
0

fossilhunter 8 years, 4 months ago

Larry - I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts. No one, and I mean no one, has been able to argue that ID fits any existing definition of science.

Guilt by association -- no, these are the statements by the guys that "invented" ID. That is the stated goal of ID theorists.

0

LarryFarma 8 years, 4 months ago

Answer to post by fossilhunter, November 30, 2005 at 8:25 a.m.

Larry- ID is taught as science FACT - even ID evangelist Behe says that ID does not fit in any accepted >>definition of science.

          Behe has his opinions and I have mine.   The first post in this series states my opinions on the issue of whether or not ID is scientific.

ID is not religion based FACT - ID is step 1 of the wedge theory that in 20 years wants ID and >>conservative Christian theory to be pervasive in every aspect of our lives.

           So you believe in guilt by association?
0

Densmore 8 years, 4 months ago

There is only one possible scenario where ID could be within the realm of science rather than religion, as follows: We were designed by beings from other planets, such beings having evolved rather than having been created by a supernatural force. Hence, those who argue that ID has nothing to do with religion are making a de facto argument for the existence of extra terrestrial intelligent beings who either designed us or tweaked the evolutionary process. Of course, there is no current scientific evidence in support of such a scenario, but at least it is a theory that does not attribute our existence to supernatural forces. This theory attempts to explain things in terms of natural forces. Since such a theory explains our existence as a product of natural forces, which in general are known to exist (natural forces, not aliens), it is scientifically superior to an explanation that involves supernatural forces, which cannot be shown to exist.

In summary, if ID is not based on religion, ID presupposes the existence of extra terrestrial visitors to earth. If you believe that ID is grounded in science, you may as well join forces with the folks who spend their vacations spying on Area 51.

0

small_fish_in_small_pond 8 years, 4 months ago

Radical Christian Fundamentalists...Whats next, terroism?

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 4 months ago

Larry- ID is taught as science FACT - even ID evangelist Behe says that ID does not fit in any accepted definition of science.

ID is not religion based FACT - ID is step 1 of the wedge theory that in 20 years wants ID and conservative Christian theory to be pervasive in every aspect of our lives.

Get the facts. This is a very, very slippery slope.

0

observer 8 years, 4 months ago

Larry. you can't teach ID as a science subject since it has no scientific basis, plain and simple it's faith. I know the KU is being discussed both both nation and world wide. I'm getting people from all over who I haven't talked to in years e-mailing and calling wanting to know what is happening to Kansas. Guesss I'm a little tired of explaining it's caused by a loud vocal minority, it doesn't represent the average Kansan.

0

Richard Heckler 8 years, 4 months ago

What is the difference between creationism and intelligent design?

Where has either proved to be elgible as a science?

Why are the supporters of creationism/intelligent design complaining? There is now a university level venue for public debate.

0

LarryFarma 8 years, 4 months ago

Answer to a message posted by Ku_cynic on November 29, 2005 at 9:12 p.m.

"I think a university-level course on the anti-evolutionary movement as a social >>phenomenon -- like the one announced at KU -- is entirely appropriate, >>especially in a humanities or social science course."

          Who said that this course is just going to study the "anti-evolutionary movement" (as you call it) as a "social phenomenon" only?      I thought that the course was also going to study intelligent design from a scientific standpoint.     Some of the professors who have already signed up as regular teachers of the course could be scientists,   and  some of the guest lecturers could be scientists,  too.     I think that the course should be offered as an interdisciplinary course officially involving the science departments.

Anyway, if one of the ulterior purposes of the course is to "debunk" the scientific claims of intelligent design, that cannot be accomplished without considering the scientific aspects.

0

LarryFarma 8 years, 4 months ago

Answer to a message posted by "observer" on November 29, 2005 at 8:39 p.m.

"Larry, you've never answered my question. What is your interest in KU? It's >>obvious you aren't an alumnus."

            How did you know?    And why do you care?     And should it matter?

           I am interested in the intelligent design controversy,  and the new KU intelligent design course is national news.     That is why I am interested in KU.    Now that I have answered your question, maybe you could return the favor by answering my above questions.

           Many people believe that the Kansas school board's approval of intelligent design sustains Kansas's  image as a "clodhopper" state.    But how many people are aware that Wichita,  for example,   is a major center of the high-tech aviation industry?    Instead of emphasizing the positive things about Kansas,  many ID-bashers wallow in Kansas's image as a clodhopper state because that gives them an excuse to try to counter that image by bashing ID.

"Could it be you're a troll for the ID proponents."

            Now that is a really paranoid conspiracy theory.

"Obviously you have no scientific background or academic skills in this area."

           I think that you made that cheap shot because you are unable to find specific flaws in my statements.     The same goes for "Mr. Christopher,"  who made a similar remark in another post.   I follow the policy of the following quote : "I'm from Missouri.   You'll have to show me."    (Willard Duncan Vandiver,   US Congressman from Missouri, which is now nicknamed the "Show Me State")
0

Mr_Christopher 8 years, 4 months ago

fact - larry knows little of ID and less about evolution yet he is completely unaware of those facts.

This suggests he is actually a member of the kansas board of education.

0

KU_cynic 8 years, 4 months ago

A couple upfront admissions:

  1. I'm a KU faculty member who is very critical of the anti-evolution forces in the state. I do not agree with their tactics or their agenda.

  2. I think a university-level course on the anti-evolutionary movement as a social phenomenon -- like the one announced at KU -- is entirely appropriate, especially in a humanities or social science course.

That said, I am very critical of the PR job that Hemenway et al have done with respect to this course. It is tempting to blame one rogue professor for his intemperate internet postings, but the KU leadership should have been way out in front of the potential PR disaster. This is the KU leadership that spent nearly $1 million to hire Janet Murguia for her short-term stint in charge of PR, to be followed by fiascos like the hundreds of thousands spent on re-logoing KU -- mainly by changing the typeface for KU and approving an official shade of blue. For all the time and attention spent on "image", do you think someone on "snob hill" might have had the foresight to realize the potential damage to relationships with conservative legislators and other key constituencies? If Hemenway et al did and let this all happen anyway, it's arrogance. If they didn't realize they were playing with political fire and take measured steps to manage this situation, it's pure stupidity and negligent stewardship.

Key leadership posts at KU are vacant, and attracting talent is proving difficult. This latest embarrassment is further evidence of the need to make big changes at the very top to bring in new leadership, vision, talent and courage -- and to inspire confidence on down the line at KU.

Perversely, to deny the "fundies" the chance to say they brought down the chancellor over this issue and thus further embolden them, KU constituencies will probably rally to Hemenway's side, holding their noses the entire time.

0

LarryFarma 8 years, 4 months ago

"Intelligent design" has been getting all the hoopla, but there are other scientific (or pseudoscientific, if you prefer) criticisms of evolution theory that have little or nothing to do with "design." Some of these other criticisms involve the following -- (1) the propagation of favorable mutations, (2) the mathematical probability of evolution, and (3) the co-evolution of two co-dependent organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants (this co-dependence is called "mutualism," and could be a kind of "irreducibly complex design" consisting of two organisms). Consider co-evolution, for example. Often a co-dependent organism has several features that are closely coordinated with features of the other organism. Co-evolution is often much more of a problem than the kind of evolution which is mere adaptation to the fixed physical features of the environment (e.g., water, land, air, and climate), because sometimes neither of the two co-dependent organisms would initially possess the feature that the other organism must adapt to. Thus, co-evolution, even where possible, could be much slower than evolutionary adaptation to fixed physical features of the environment. And the article on "co-evolution" in the Wikipedia online Internet encyclopedia says, "few perfectly isolated examples of evolution can be identified: essentially all evolution is co-evolution."

0

observer 8 years, 4 months ago

Larry, you've never answered my question. What is your interest in KU? It's obvious you aren't an alumnus. Could it be you're a troll for the ID proponents.Obviously you have no scientific background or academic skills in this area.

0

LarryFarma 8 years, 4 months ago

There are many misconceptions about intelligent design, and ID-bashers often deliberately propagate these misconceptions in an effort to discredit it. Some of these misconceptions are --

(1) Misconception -- ID is religious Fact --ID can be, and in fact is supposed to be, just a scientific (some say pseudoscientific) criticism of evolution theory.

(2) Misconception -- ID is not scientific because it is not "testable" Fact -- Macro-evolution theory is not testable, either -- it is based entirely on circumstantial evidence in fossil records, comparative anatomy, genetics, etc..

(3) Misconception -- ID is not scientific because it is neither a "theory" nor a "hypothesis" Fact -- If "theory" is defined as a complete scientific explanation for some observations of nature, and if "hypothesis" is defined as a proposed theory, then it is true that ID is not a theory or a hypothesis. But something can be scientific without being a theory or a hypothesis -- e.g., criticism of a scientific theory can be scientific.

(4) Misconception -- ID is the only scientific (or pseudoscientific) criticism of evolution theory Fact -- Some other actual or potential criticisms of evolution theory involve -- (1) the propagation of favorable mutations, (2) the mathematical probability of evolution, and (3) co-evolution of two co-dependent organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants (this co-dependence, called "mutualism," might sometimes be a kind of "irreducibly complex design" consisting of two organisms).

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.